Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed

PETITIONS

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a Petition, signed by over 40,000 people. The signatures have been collected by the youth organisations in this country. It reads as follows:
To the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Youth and Student Organisations of Great Britain sheweth that Britain's possession of nuclear weapons and the existence of United States bases on her soil place our country in danger of nuclear annihilation and threaten to exterminate millions of human beings throughout the world.
Your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray that Britain renounces her nuclear weapons and closes all bases on her soil forthwith, thus enabling her to play a decisive rôle in achieving international negotiations for general and total disarmament.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Housing, South London

Mr. C. Johnson: I ask the leave of the House to present a Petition from several thousand residents in South London, including many in my own constituency, which sheweth that the housing position is still extremely grave, that many thousands of families are forced to live in overcrowded conditions and that thousands of others lack essential amenities. The Petition alleges that this is primarily due to the decontrol provisions and increased rents resulting

from recent Rent Acts, the restrictive effect of Her Majesty's Government's housing policy, the very high interest rates resulting in increased rent and rates and high mortgage charges for house purchases, and the failure of the Government to impose any measure of control over land speculation.

The Petition concludes:

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to deal with this distressing problem.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Nuclear Propulsion

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport if he is yet in a position to make a detailed statement on the progress made towards the construction of British-built nuclear merchant ships and fishing trawlers; and when he expects the first of these to be sea-going.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport when he will announce the award of a tender for the construction of the first British nuclear-powered merchant ship.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Examination of the tenders for a nuclear reactor and propelling machinery suitable for installation in a tanker of 65,000 tons deadweight is proceeding as quickly as possible, but I am not yet able to say when a decision will be made. Nuclear propulsion cannot reasonably be considered for any but large ships at this stage.

Mr. Hughes: Is there any insuperable technical objection to the use of nuclear propulsion for smaller ships, or does the reply of the Minister mean that it can never be used in that way? If so, would the right hon. Gentleman make a categorical statement about it in order to save wasting time, energy and material in wasteful experiments?

Mr. Marples: It would be silly, I think, to say that certain technical feats such as that could never be achieved,


but I think the first thing to do is to take the optimum size, which is about 65,000 tons dead weight, make that, if we possibly can, an economic proposition, and see where we go from there.

Mr. Wall: Does my right hon. Friend recall That it is two years since the Galbraith Committee was appointed, and it is six months since he received tenders? Further, does he agree with the view that, until Britain has practical experience with a ship at sea, she is unlikely to obtain any lead in this new development? Cannot he say when he will make a decision in this matter?

Mr. Marples: I do not think that an undue length of time has elapsed. The five tenders were received on 29th July last, and the technical committee has considered them. It is a very complex subject, and we must not make any mistakes in our construction of a nuclear ship. The technical committee has practically concluded its assessment and it will be meeting shortly to draw up its report.

Mr. Mellish: The time has surely arrived when the House as a whole is entitled to know what is the shipping policy of Her Majesty's Government. This is only one small part of it. Does the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciate the concern which has been expressed on both sides of the House about this matter? When are we to learn from the Government what their intentions are for shipping in this country?

Mr. Marples: That is another subject, and there is a later Question on the Order Paper about it.

Flags of Convenience

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Transport if he will have discussions with the United States administration about initiating international action to deal with ships sailing under flags of convenience.

Mr. Marples: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) on 25th January.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer, which I heard, did not contain an assurance that

my right hon. Friend would initiate talks on this very important subject with the new United States Administration? Is he further aware that, while six years ago the total of shipping registered under flags of convenience was one-eleventh of the world's total, it is now one-seventh of the world's total, and that it is a matter of very great urgency?

Mr. Marples: That is true, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that in its recent survey the General Council of British Shipping indicated that in its view international agreement and action in the matter of flags of convenience would make little or no progress in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Strauss: While it may be premature to ask for discussions with the new Administration in the United States, will the Minister give the House an indication that, as soon as possible and as soon as the time appears to be right, he will make the necessary approaches in order to have negotiations and discussions on this all-important matter?

Mr. Marples: If at any moment I think that it would be worth while and fruitful for negotiations to take place, I will certainly do so.

Standard Life Jacket

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport what tests were carried out by his Department to prove that their standard life jacket would ensure that an unconscious person over 15 stone in weight would have his face held above water by the jacket.

Mr. Marples: Tests were carried out on three men, one weighing just over 17 stone and the others about 18 stone each. It was found that when their bodies were inert the standard lifejacket supported them with their heads well clear of the water. The tests made use of information about the position taken up by an unconscious body in the water which was derived from a film of a test made during the last war.

Mr. Langford-Holt: When my right hon. Friend last answered a Question by me about this matter, he made the point that in other tests which had been made a live, conscious body had been used


to imitate an unconscious body. Can my right hon. Friend say exactly how he managed to overcome that difficulty?

Mr. Marples: I normally find supplementary questions from my hon. Friend very lucid, but I was rather confused by this one. If he thinks that there is any test that anybody else would like my Ministry to make on their own apparatus, we would be willing to do so.

South Wales Ports (Capital Expenditure)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport what amount of capital expenditure he has authorised for each of the South Wales ports during the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: Provision for expenditure of £1,045,000 in all, of which some £670,000 will be spent this year, is made in the British Transport Commission's proposed investment programme for 1961. I am informed that this is in respect of existing commitments on minor projects. No submissions have been put to me for later years.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of evidence that the docks in South Wales which are owned by the British Transport Commission are lagging behind docks such as those of Avonmouth not owned by the Commission in the matter of modernisation and the provision of up-to-date capital equipment? Will he consider that fact in assessing the needs of these docks in future?

Mr. Marples: I am aware that I must always wait for a submission to me from the British Transport Commission, because it runs the day-to-day business and it knows best how large the volume of traffic is at the ports. In 1960 the volume of imports through the South Wales ports increased by a figure three times that of 1938.

Mr. Awbery: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the South Wales ports are working now to capacity, or what percentage of capacity they are working at?

Mr. Marples: Perhaps I could have notice of that question.

Laid-up Vessels

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Transport what number of vessels registered in the United Kingdom is idle; and when he intends to meet the representatives of the Chamber of Shipping to consider what measures are required to bring these vessels into service.

Mr. Marples: On 1st January, sixty-seven such vessels, totalling 503,500 gross tons, were laid up for lack of employment. The employment of shipping is a matter for the shipping industry. The General Council of British Shipping in its recent Report suggests how the Government might help the industry and I hope soon to discuss that Report with the Council.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he has sufficient time to give satisfactory attention to the present state of the shipping industry and its future? Is he not overburdened with the railways and roads and a variety of cognate subjects? Would he not advise the Prime Minister—and I say this with the greatest respect to himself—that he might appoint somebody to take charge of shipping?

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. I do not think that there has been undue waste of time. We have only just received the Report of the General Council of British Shipping and I am seeing the Council a week today.

Mr. Peyton: Would my right hon. Friend consider at this juncture, when there is a new Administration in the United States, making some approach so that there might be new international discussions about these difficult problems, because only in that way shall we get anywhere?

Mr. Marples: I answered a supplementary question earlier on that point, and if I thought that any good would be done by it I would get in touch with them straight away.

Policy

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Transport on what date he intends to announce to the House his proposals for future shipping policy, following his consideration of the report from the General Council of British Shipping.

Mr. Marples: I cannot yet say when the Government will have completed its consideration and discussion of the General Council's Report. But, as I said in answer to a supplementary question earlier, I am meeting the General Council a week today.

Dame Irene Ward: Could my right hon. Friend give an assurance here and now that the problems which the General Council of British Shipping raised will not be lost in all the attention that is given by him, however essential it may be, to roads and railways?

Mr. Marples: I think that it has taken the General Council eighteen months to produce a Report and only a few days for me to arrange to meet the Council. I do not think that it is reasonable, therefore, to say that there has been any undue delay.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for much longer than eighteen months Questions have been asked from both sides of the House about the condition of British shipping and that he was made aware of the difficulty long ago? Is the right hon. Gentleman seized of the importance of British shipping in the national economy, and is he aware that, unless he does something subsequent to considering the Report, we shall have to put a Motion on the Order Paper to ask that shipping be transferred from him to some other more competent Minister?

Mr. Marples: I am certain that the House will agree with me that the Council knows its own business better than anyone else. It has taken eighteen months to prepare its Report. I have agreed to meet the Council straight away and I think that that is not unbusinesslike by any standards,

Mr. J. Howard: Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to that part of the Report dealing with coastal shipping, about which immediate action is required?

Mr. Marples: The whole Report will be studied, including that part of it which deals with coastal shipping.

Mr. Mellish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us feel that since he came to power he has taken upon

himself many extra powers to deal with other problems, both of road and rail, and we sincerely believe that it is not possible for one Minister, in addition to dealing with roads and railways, to take over these other problems of shipping? I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing personal in this.

Mr. Marples: I cannot say anything more except that I am seeing the Council as quickly as possible and I do not think that anybody could see it in a shorter time than that within which have arranged to see it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Tothill Bridge, Burghclere

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for strengthening the Tothill bridge on A.34 over the railway line at Burghclere. Hampshire.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): We expect to reconstruct the bridge within the next three years.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I thank my hon. Friend for that first information on the subject, but is he aware that this bridge has been unsafe for a very long time, that the use of the detour by traffic results in higher costs, and that a great deal of heavy traffic does not use the detour and presumably, therefore, runs into danger? Is it not possible to expedite the work by, say, twelve months?

Mr. Hay: I wrote to my hon. Friend in detail about this on 22nd September last, so this is not the first time he has heard of our intention to reconstruct within three years. We shall certainly proceed with the work as quickly as we can. Last year, we authorised repairs costing £1,100 to ensure the life of the existing bridge for a further period.

Road Junction, Sutton Scotney

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for improving the crossing of A.30 and A.34 at Sutton Scotney, Hampshire.

Mr. Hay: We propose eventually to construct a by-pass of Sutton Scotney. It will extend from the eastern junction


of A.30 with A.34 to a point on A.34 about one mile to the south. At the same time, the junction will be improved.
I cannot at present say when this scheme will be carried out.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I thank my hon. Friend for that Reply, but has he closed his mind entirely to the possibility of making minor improvements to this very dangerous junction, possibly by putting in traffic lights, because at present, during the summer months, it is quite impossible at times for north-bound and south-bound traffic to cross the east-west road?

Mr. Hay: Our general policy is to avoid the use of traffic lights on trunk roads wherever possible, but I will look into the possibility of some improvement such as my hon. Friend suggests.

London-West Country (Alternative Routes)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made in finding and upgrading roads alternative to those sections of the A.30 that are heavily congested in the summer months.

Mr. Marples: My officers are in close touch with the local highway authorities and the police so that the signposting of alternative routes adopted last year is repeated this summer.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend accept it from me that, although I spent my holidays in Cornwall last summer, I did not notice these alternative routes and I do not intend to go to Cornwall again until these murderous 150 miles out of London are improved? Is not the real solution to find some suitable alternative routes, particularly avoiding the road from Honiton and Exeter?

Mr. Marples: If my hon. Friend will tell me where he is taking his summer holiday this year, I will send him details of alternative routes.

Eton-Windsor Relief Road

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Transport what decision has been reached regarding the Eton-Windsor relief road.

Mr. Hay: Our approval of the revised proposals for this road was notified to the Berkshire and Buckinghamshire County Councils on 3rd January.

Mr. Brockway: I am grateful for that, but can the hon. Gentleman say when the construction is likely to begin? Does he realise that the picturesque and historic High Street of Eton is now. because of lorry traffic from the Midlands to Southampton, becoming dangerous for old people, for children at the elementary school and for the boys at the college—particularly at the "Burning Bush"—and will he expedite the construction as much as possible?

Mr. Hay: It is not really for me to expedite the construction because the river crossing requires a Private Bill which is being promoted during this Session of Parliament by the two county councils to which I referred. I cannot, therefore, give any firm date for the start of construction.

Edenfield-Rawtenstall By-pass

Mr. Greenwood: asked the Minister of Transport when the line of the Edenfield-Rawtenstall by-pass will be fixed.

Mr. Hay: We hope to publish our proposals for the line of the by-pass of Edenfield and the Rawtenstall level crossing later this year. There will then be three months for the submission of objections. How soon thereafter the line can be established will depend on whether it is necessary to hold a public inquiry.

Mr. Greenwood: In view of the hardship to local residents and the inconvenience to the local authorities, will the hon. Gentleman assure me that there will be no undue delay in removing the uncertainty which now exists?

Mr. Hay: Yes, certainly. Everything will depend upon the volume of objections we receive and whether we have to hold a public inquiry. If local residents are anxious to see the thing through and do not abject, we may proceed with it much more quickly.

Motorways (Tolls)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the report of the study he


ordered into the question of tolls on future motorways.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress made, and the decisions taken, in the study given by his Department on the charging of tolls on new motorways.

Mr. Marples: Good progress is being made with this study, but I have not yet received the report.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: When he is considering the report, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, despite increased expenditure on roads in this country, we still compare unfavourably with other countries and that, even so, some of those countries are turning to toll roads?

Mr. Marples: Yes, I will bear that in mind.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Is there any point is speeding up traffic by better roads and then slowing it down by tolls?

Mr. Marples: It may not necessarily be slowed down by tolls if modern methods are used.

Dual Carriageway Roads

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport how many miles of dual carriageway existed in 1945, 1951 and 1959, respectively.

Mr. Marples: As nearly as can be estimated from our records, there were, at the end of 1945, roughly 350 miles of dual carriageway road in England and Wales; at the end of 1951, there were approximately 400 miles, and at the end of 1959, 652 miles.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Since this is one of the best ways of preventing accidents, will my right hon. Friend press on with the job as fast as he can?

Mr. Marples: We are doing so. We have more of these dual carriageways under construction than we have ever had in the history of the country.

Accidents, Derby

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport how many road accidents there were in the County

Borough of Derby in the calendar year 1960; how many were fatal; and how many people were seriously injured.

Mr. Hay: There were 691 accidents involving death or injury. I am sorry to say that 18 people were killed and 241 were seriously injured.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend will agree that these are horrifying figures. Will they do everything in their power to help the Derby Council to carry through the road improvements it wishes to make? Secondly, will the Minister call for an expert inquiry into the present cost of road accidents to the nation to ascertain how heavy it is?

Mr. Hay: With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we shall, of course, consistent with our duty generally to improve roads throughout the country, do all we can to assist in Derby. With regard to the second part, I very much doubt that an inquiry of that kind would give us any more information than we have already about the causes of accidents.

Mr. Noel-Baker: During the latter part of the war, there was such an inquiry, which proved that the cost of accidents to the nation—which did not fall on the Chancellor of the Exchequer but on the citizens of the country—was enormously heavy. It must be very much greater today. Would it not help to put the problem in proper perspective if we knew what the cost was?

Mr. Hay: I am sorry to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but we have looked at this very carefully in recent months and we are quite satisfied that there would be no great advantage to be obtained from an inquiry of that kind.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I press the Minister?

Mr. Speaker: No. I think we ought to go on. I am sorry.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, I have had such an inquiry made—

Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand me. Mr. Pannell, Question No. 14.

Special Car Parks (London)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Transport if he will allow the continued use of the special car parks in the central area of London, subject to the requirements of ceremonial occasions, until a sufficient amount of permanent off-street parking has been provided for motorists.

Mr. Marples: The sites in the Royal Parks were offered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works as free car parks on the understanding that this was a temporary measure in the exceptional conditions of Christmas. The other central sites were provided on the same basis. If any of their owners find it convenient to keep them in use for parking on a commercial basis, I should certainly not object.

Mr. Fisher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the car parking problem for motorists is not simply a Christmas problem but is a continuing and increasing problem? Will not he consider asking my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to keep open the Horse Guards Parade, Constitution Hill and the Mall, for instance, until other more permanent provisions, such as my right hon. Friend's Bill which is before the House this afternoon, can be brought into operation?

Mr. Marples: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a Question to that effect to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and ask him direct instead of via me. In respect of one or two of the sites which were used in the central areas, negotiations are going on with a view to their being kept open and a charge made.

Mr. Strauss: Will the Minister support the representations made by his hon. Friend to the Minister of Works to keep some of these car parks open?

Mr. Marples: I would rather not rise to that fly.

Street Lighting

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he intends to take to obtain a nationally satisfactory standard of street lighting, bearing in mind the substantially lower accident rates in better lighted roads and the widely varying quality of street lighting used by the

3,000 different lighting authorities of England and Wales.

Mr. Marples: There is already a British Standard Code of Practice for Street Lighting which recommends standards for traffic routes and for other roads, widely used by lighting authorities as a guide. In London and one or two other great conurbations, moreover, lighting authorities have formed consultative committees to co-ordinate their work. I have also in hand a survey of present lighting conditions on all trunk and Class I roads, which is almost complete, and this information will have to be studied before any further steps can usefully be considered.

Mr. Cronin: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he fully appreciates that here is a clear-cut method of substantially reducing the toll of road accidents? Will he, therefore, expedite these matters as much as he can?

Mr. Marples: I certainly will. I realise that the increase in accidents at night which has taken place is proportionately greater than the increase in accidents during the day. The difficulty is that
a nationally satisfactory standard of street lighting".
which is the phrase in the Question, is a phrase not capable of precise application, because the street lighting on any length of road must be considered in relation to that road's characteristics. I hope that some of the information which I mentioned in my Answer will be useful when it is received.

East Lancashire Road

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give priority to completing the East Lancashire road at its Liverpool end, so as to facilitate the movement of traffic to the docks.

Mr. Hay: This is for the local highway authority to consider in the first place. We will be pleased to consider any such scheme it may care to put to us.

Mr. Irvine: While I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that Answer, may I ask whether he agrees that the development referred to in the Question is one which will have relevance to the country's export position at a point close to


a cardinally significant port? Will he indicate the Government's view that, bearing this in mind, together with the economic situation, this is a development which should be given priority?

Mr. Hay: The hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that I cannot comment on a proposal from a local highway authority until we have had a chance of seeing and investigating it.

Trunk Roads, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport how many miles of trunk roads were completed in Wales during each of the last three years; and what is his estimate of the trunk road building which will take place during each of the next three years.

Mr. Marples: The mileage of trunk roads Li Wales and Monmouthshire which was either built anew or completely rebuilt in each of the last three years is: 1958–59, 17·3 miles; 1959–60, 22·5 miles; 1960–61, 25·3 miles.
In the next three years, the approximate figures are expected to be: 1961–62, 23 miles; 1962–63, 30 miles; 1963–64, 27 miles.

Mr. Gower: Does my right hon. Friend feel that these figures are rather small in view of the tremendous industrial growth in large parts of the Principality during the last few years? Will he consider whether they could be increased considerably?

Mr. Marples: Oh, no. I think it is wrong to take the Welsh roads in isolation, because Wales profits greatly from road schemes outside Wales. Schemes such as the Severn Bridge, the Bristol-Birmingham motorway and the Ross Spur, for example, help considerably.

Marton Road, Middlesbrough (Speed Limit)

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has completed his consultations about the application of a speed limit for motor vehicles to Marton Road, Middlesbrough; and when the limit will come into force.

Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend confirmed the Middlesbrough County Borough Council's speed limit Order on

30th December. It will become effective when the council has put up the necessary speed limit signs.

Mr. Marquand: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was on 21st January last year that the need for this restriction was first put before his noble colleague the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry? Why should it have taken all this long time to complete these deliberations? Now that at last the speed limit is being put on the road, will he see that the speed limit is taken off the bureaucratic machine which takes such a long time to come to a decision?

Mr. Hay: The Council did not submit the Order for confirmation by the Minister until 21st November, 1960. Having heard all objections we confirmed the Order on 30th December, and it was returned to the council duly endorsed on 6th January.

Mr. Marquand: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that of course Middlesbrough Council could not put the application in until November, because it had been given no indication of what was in the hon. Gentleman's mind until that time?

Motorways, Midlands

Mr. Jennings: asked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made with the draft schemes for the Midland Link motorways.

Mr. Marples: A draft scheme was published last March for the motorway between Lydiate Ash, at the northern end of the Birmingham-Bristol motorway, which is now under construction, and the junction at Great Barr with the other sections of the Midland Link motorway. I am now considering objections to it. I have recently made the scheme for the motorway between Dunston and Castle Bromwich, and detailed preparatory work on it is now proceeding Survey of the line of a motorway leading eastwards from Castle Bromwich to connect with the M.1 at Catthorpe has been completed and I hope to publish a draft scheme by the end of this year.

Mr. Jennings: In considering the system of roadways in the Midlands, will my right hon. Friend look at the problem of the A.38 and the main road from Birmingham to Burton-on-Trent? Can


he tell me whether he has yet decided what route the proposed A.38 by-pass from Burton-on-Trent will take, and if so, can he give the programme date for commencing the operations?

Mr. Marples: if my hon. Friend is referring to the Burton-on-Trent by-pass, my answer is that I hope to publish the draft Order before Easter.

Mr. Jennings: I thank my right hon. Friend.

Severn Bridge Project

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now state when work will be started on the Severn Bridge project; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hay: Tenders for construction of the foundations and sub-structure of the Severn Bridge and an access road to the site are under consideration. We expect to let the contract for this work shortly.

Mr. Ness Edwards: In view of the tremendous amount of patience shown by the people of South Wales—and people in England, too—may we be told what precisely "shortly" means? Has the Minister any idea of the completion date of this scheme?

Mr. Hay: The invitations to tender were issued on 28th September, 1960, and after a request by several potential tenderers we were obliged to extend the tender period to 10th January, which was, after all, only a few days ago. We are now on the point of deciding.

Newcastle-Tynemouth Coast Road

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will reconsider his decision and allow the conversion of the Newcastle to Tynemouth coast road into a dual carriageway to be included in the 1961–62 programme.

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the Northumberland county authorities wish to go ahead at once with the planning of the coast road from Newcastle to Walls-end and Tynemouth; if, in order to enable the authorities to do this, he will make a decision regarding the width for the dual carriageway to allow for the two roads, a central reservation and two

footpaths as speedily as possible; and when a decision may be expected.

Mr. Hay: We are aware of the importance of this project, which is one of those proposed by the committee of local authorities in the Tyneside conurbation for starting in 1961–62. We hope shortly to be able to let the local authorities know what programme we can accept for next year, and also our views on the proposed dimensions of this road which are at present being examined by our engineers.

Mr. Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware that this road is the most accident-prone traffic artery in the whole of the country? Will he, therefore, in the interests of road safety, please use a sense of urgency in his Department and reconsider this whole matter so that the local authorities can get on with the work at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend's supplementary question might have been appropriate if I had said that we were not going to do this scheme. I said in my original Answer that we are hoping to let them know in a very short time. I hope they will have patience for a few more days.

Mr. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the difficulties we have in attracting new industries to the North-East is the inadequacy of our communications generally, and that this coast road from Newcastle is one of the major factors? It would be a tremendous help to those of us who are trying to attract new industries to the area if he would co-operate over the dual carriageway.

Mr. Hay: It is precisely because we do appreciate the importance of road communications in this area that we have now received a 20-year programme from the Conurbation Sub-Committee so that we may know exactly where we may be able to go over the next few years.

South-West (Trunk and Classified Roads)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Transport when he received a request from highway authorities in the South-West for an interview about the inadequacy of trunk and classified roads there


and the need for additional grants for road improvement works.

Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) wrote to me about this on 20th December. I have replied that my hon. Friend or I will be glad to receive a deputation.

Mr. Hayman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the needs of Cornwall are very great?

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. I will bear that in mind.

Evesham Road, Redditch (Pedestrian Crossing)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to provide a pedestrian crossing in Evesham Road, Redditch, opposite The Woodlands.

Mr. Hay: For the reasons explained to my hon. Friend in my letter of the 27th January I am afraid we cannot agree to provide a pedestrian crossing here.

Mr. Dance: I thank my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, indeed I do—for his very good and expansive letter. But, in view of the anxiety in the minds of some of these old people and in view of the fact that he said that he would look at the matter again, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he would consider providing something on the lines of a pedestrian-operated crossing?

Mr. Hay: I have looked into this matter very carefully. In these cases where old people are concerned the risk always is that a pedestrian crossing is rather liable to be a snare and a trap than a good safety measure. I cannot hold out any hopes of doing anything for my hon. Friend in that direction.

Mr. Dance: Not even with operated lights?

Mr. Hay: There are certain complications that arise even with those.

Road Junction, Dagenham (Traffic Signals)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the long delay that has taken place in the erection of traffic signals at the junction

of Oval Road North and Ballards Road, Dagenham; and whether he will authorise their speedy construction.

Mr. Hay: The highway authority submitted an installation plan to us on Monday of this week. It will shortly be approved for grant.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Lorries (Rear Lights and Reflectors)

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport what regulations he is making concerning strip reflectors, or other contrivances, designed to make the rear of lorries more visible at night.

Mr. Hay: We are not proposing any regulations of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend. We are satisfied that the two rear lights and two reflectors required by the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957, are adequate, provided, of course, that they are properly maintained.
We recently circulated, and are now studying the comments by interested bodies upon, draft regulations which would require most vehicles over 40 ft. in length to carry additional side lights visible also from front and rear, and also draft regulations prescribing additional lights and other markings for vehicles carrying projecting loads.

Traffic Experiment (Middlesbrough)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the recent experiment carried out by the Road Research Laboratory at Middlesbrough requiring drivers to give way to vehicles approaching from the right is regarded as highly successful; and if he will take steps to make this generally applicable.

Mr. Hay: This was a limited experiment on a small roundabout. We are advised that further trials will be necessary before conclusions can be drawn which are sufficiently reliable for general application.

Sir B. Janner: In view of the fact that there were some highly successful results, particularly in the limitation of time needed by traffic, does not the Minister


think that it would be useful to introduce this arrangement, at any rate for the time being, to see how it works in various areas?

Mr. Hay: I have personally a good deal of sympathy with the point which the hon. Member puts, but the results of this experiment did not bear out what he has just said. In fact, the journey-time for the afternoon peak traffic was increased rather than reduced. I am afraid that we cannot see our way clear to make this general application until we have done more experiments.

Vehicles (Excessive Loads)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that dislocations of traffic have occurred in Leicester owing to the use of transporters for the purpose of carrying excessive loads through the town; and what steps he proposes to take by introducing regulations to prevent similar incidents in Leicester and elsewhere in the future.

Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the difficulty recently caused in Leicester by the movement of a series of very long steel girders through the town. Efforts are now being made to find an alternative route for the remainder of these loads. We are hoping to introduce shortly new regulations which will give us power to control directly the movement of such very long loads.

Sir B. Janner: While I thank the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether in the circumstances he will also consider some kind of co-ordination between road and rail services in respect of heavy loads? Does he also realise that he must get on with the main motor road speedily, because that in itself will ultimately solve many of the problems with which we are confronted in Leicester?

Mr. Hay: I suspected that the hon. Member would wish to raise the question of the London-Yorkshire Motorway in view of the numerous passages which he and I have had on the subject. We are well aware of this problem, and that is why the regulations are being reconsidered.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is the hon. Member aware that this problem of excessive

loads on British roads is not confined to Leicester but is becoming a national scandal? What happened to the Inter-Departmental Committee, which is supposed to have been sitting to consider this problem? The House has been fobbed off year after year with the statement that the Committee was not yet ready to make its report. Has the Committee reached any conclusion about dealing with moving this excessive traffic back to the railways of Britain, where it belongs, instead of on the roads, thus reducing these dangers?

Mr. Hay: It is only right to point out that an increasing number of these large loads are moved by road because it is either much more economical or more efficient than to send them in any other way. But their movement raises difficulties, and our regulations are intended to deal with the problem.

Omnibus Services, London

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Transport if he will amplify the statement regarding the main difficulties facing the London Transport Executive in respect of omnibus services, contained in the reply sent by his Department on 9th December, 1960, to a request by Acton Borough Council for a public inquiry into the operation of the London Transport omnibus services generally.

Mr. Marples: My Department's letter of 9th December referred specifically to one major difficulty, the shortage of bus crews. Others exist, such as rush hour peaks and traffic congestion and I am considering the general position in connection with the proposal, made in various quarters, for an inquiry into the operation of London Transport services.

Mr. Holland: While thanking the Minister for that helpful reply, which I know will be welcomed by the Acton Borough Council, may I ask him to expedite his consideration of the possibility of an inquiry and to give us an answer fairly soon?

Mr. Marples: The position has changed in recent months rather to the advantage of the travelling public. For example. the crew position is becoming very much better. There has been a net gain of 800 drivers and conductors since


the wage rise in October, and the men have agreed to do more overtime. As a result, lost mileage has been halved and the outlook is much better than it was at the end of last year.

Mr. Mellish: This initiative for a public inquiry was taken by the bus drivers themselves. They were anxious to convey to the British public, and the London public in particular, that, at any rate in the main, bus drivers and conductors were not responsible for the chaos which we have in London. Will the Minister concede that the time has come for a public inquiry?

Mr. Marples: I am considering not only representations from hon. Members but also representations from various local authorities, as well as those which the busmen made and which were presented to me by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).

Pedal Cycles (Lights)

Dr. A. Glyn: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the number of accidents involving pedal cyclists, whether he will consider enforcing a minimum standard of intensity of light for both front and rear lights of pedal cycles, in the interests of both motorists and cyclists.

Mr. Hay: The efficiency of rear lights used by many cyclists leaves much to be desired, and we are considering an amendment of the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations, 1959, which would require all pedal cycles to carry rear lamps marked with the number of the appropriate British Standard. Such a requirement would be more valuable than a prescription of required intensity, which would raise enforcement difficulties. I do not think the same problem exists to any large extent with regard to front lights on pedal cycles.

Dr. Glyn: While thanking my hon. Friend for that kind Answer, may I ask whether he would agree that, if he is altering the standard, it would be advisable to alter it for both front and rear lights? Does he not agree that one of the great dangers of this dynamo-type lighting is that the cyclist has no illumination whatever when halted at crossroads?

Mr. Hay: No. As I said in my Answer, we do not think that the same problem exists in the case of the front lamps. As everybody knows, there is much greater risk of accident if a cyclist is either on the road or stationary without an effective rear light. That is what we must concentrate on at this stage.

Committee on Rural Transport (Report)

Mr. Speir: asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to publish the report and findings of Professor Jack's Committee on Rural Transport, in view of the need for early action to assist rural bus operators to maintain their services.

Mr. Marples: As soon as practicable.

Mr. Speir: Does my right hon. Friend realise that that limited and rather negative reply will be cold comfort to those living in the rural areas? Does he appreciate that the continuing failure of post-war Governments to deal with this problem is causing hardship and difficulty to those living in the rural areas? Does he realise that it is not in the national interest for the public transport facilities in those areas to deteriorate further, and will he please take effective steps at an early date?

Mr. Marples: I assure my hon. Friend that he need not be unduly impatient. The report will be published as soon as possible.

Motor Vehicles (Headlights)

Mr. Hopkins: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to enforce the use of yellow bulbs in the headlights of motor vehicles.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. There is no evidence to suggest that yellow headlamps giving the same seeing distance as white headlamps offer any advantage.

Mr. Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in France it is obligatory to have yellow headlights and that it is far easier to drive at night against an oncoming car with yellow headlamps than with white ones?

Mr. Marples: I expected a supplementary question about France, because


I have travelled through France frequently. The answer is that the headlamp beams on French cars are generally of a lower intensity than those on British cars. That is the reason for the lack of dazzle. It is not the colour, but the lower intensity.

Mr. G. Wilson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Road Research Laboratory investigated this matter some years ago and came to the conclusion that the French were wrong.

Mr. Marples: Yes. It was in 1957 when this was investigated and it was found that people in this country preferred white headlamps.

London Transport

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Transport what reply he has made to the representations he has received from the Middlesex County Council urging him to appoint a committee of inquiry into London Transport.

Mr. Marples: My Department has told the Middlesex County Council that its representations are being considered. As the hon. Member no doubt knows, I already have under consideration a similar request from other quarters.

Mr. Albu: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that such an inquiry would at least disclose where the responsibility lies as between London Transport Executive and his own Department? Would not he agree that it would also show the urgent necessity of getting on with the Victoria line and the fact that failure to do so is one of the causes of the present trouble?

Mr. Marples: The House must remember that there was a very exhaustive inquiry by the Chambers Committee into London Transport between 1953 and 1955. The Committee spent two-and-a-half years looking at it, and found that it was conducted efficiently and with due regard to economy.

Motor Cycles (Passengers)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation to extend the Road Traffic Acts to provide compulsory insurance for passengers on motor cycles.

Mr. Hay: This is one of the matters covered by the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) which is to be debated on Second Reading on 10th February. I think we should await that debate.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is it not correct that the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) covers only motor cars? As it has become the practice of insurance companies, with the growth of this form of transport, to exclude liability for personal injury to passengers, is not this now a matter for urgent action, even if it involves higher insurance premiums?

Mr. Hay: I do not wish to anticipate the debate which is to take place in ten days' time, but I am advised that the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Loughborough covers motor cars and motor cycles.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is it not a fact that in the practice of insurance companies a passenger in a motor vehicle, injured in a collision involving two vehicles, is bound to recover damages against either the driver of his own vehicle or tile driver of the other vehicle? Is it not therefore rather superfluous to introduce legislation to meet something which is already covered in practice by insurance existing under present Statute law?

Mr. Hay: Perhaps that is a matter which the hon. Member should take up with his hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

West Indies (Recruitment of Personnel)

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent it remains the policy of the British Transport Commission to recruit personnel in the West Indies.

Mr. Marples: As my predecessor informed my hon. Friend on 18th April, 1956, recruitment is a function of management, and is not a matter in which I would wish to interfere with the British Transport Commission's discretion. The Commission is short of manpower in certain grades and in


certain localities. A large-scale recruiting drive in this country has not met with sufficient response, and the Commission is, therefore, making up the deficiency by recruitment elsewhere.

Mr. Pannell: In view of the great increase in immigration from the West Indies during the past year, does not my right hon. Friend agree that this agency is now redundant and that suitable personnel could be recruited in this country through the various organisations concerned with the welfare and settlement of these immigrants? Will he make a recommendation to that effect?

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. The broad question of immigration is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and not for me, but I am satisfied that the British Transport Commission has made every endeavour to recruit labour in order to keep its services in a satisfactory state for the travelling public.

Mr. Mellish: Will the Minister take it from hon. Members on this side of the House that those who are employed by the London Transport Executive and who come from the West Indies are doing a fine job, are extremely courteous and are very well liked by the public, and that most Londoners are grateful that they are over here?

Mr. Marples: I think that they play a most useful part in maintaining essential services during a period of full employment.

Mr. Pannell: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Electrified Lines (Fencing)

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the recent incident in which nineteen foxhounds were killed on the railway line near Dover on Saturday, 14th January, whether, in the interests of public safety, he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to safeguard effectively all their electric lines from access by persons and animals.

Mr. Hay: No, Sir. We do not consider that this is a matter which it would be

proper to deal with by a general direction. I am advised that the Commission could not reasonably be expected to provide more secure fencing than existed at the site of this particular occurrence.

Mr. Royle: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at the matter another way. In view of other occurrences of this kind which have taken place and the potential danger to the travelling public arising there from, will he now instruct that prosecutions for trespassing should be instituted against masters of hounds?

Mr. Hay: I do not think that my right hon. Friend has any power to instruct that prosecutions should be instituted.

Early Morning Fares

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to retain cheap early morning fares on all forms of public transport for which it is responsible where such fares exist at the present time; and if he will similarly instruct his traffic commissioners to refuse applications they have received to raise early morning fares on public service vehicles.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that early morning cheap tickets for workers travelling over fairly long distances to their jobs are a facility which he could have used his influence to retain and that, because of economic circumstances, many of these people have been driven on to the roads, where many more accidents have happened as a result? Will not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is his responsibility to do something about alleviating the distress on the roads and obviating accidents?

Mr. Marples: In my view, these fares can no longer be justified on either social or economic grounds. Outside London, there are cheap day return fares available at any time which are cheaper than early morning fares, and I do not consider that the abolition of early morning fares will cause any great hardship.

Motive Power Units and Rolling Stock

Mr. Popplewell: asked the Minister of Transport if the proposed new railway boards will have power to produce their own motive power units or rolling stock.

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Transport if the proposed railway boards will have authority to produce their own rolling stock and motive power units and equipment.

Mr. Marples: Paragraph 14 of the White Paper states that the Railway Workshops will be vested in the British Railways Board. I contemplate that the forthcoming legislation will give this Board the statutory power which the hon. Members have in mind.

Mr. Popplewell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how much pleasure it will give to the railway industry to have this assurance that it will be left entirely to the proposed Railways Board to produce at long last its own motive power units? Is he aware that this will be a very good move indeed, particularly in view of the difficulties the British Transport Commission is having with inferior motive power units which have been supplied by outside industry?

Mr. Marples: Without endorsing the last part of that supplementary question, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman finds this paragraph of the White Paper satisfactory—as, indeed, most of the other paragraphs are. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the copy of the White Paper that he has torn up and stick it together again now.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is pleasant for us to see that he is becoming a little less doctrinaire? Would he not agree that it is very necessary, in view of the inability of private contractors to supply reliable equipment, that the railways should have power to produce their own so that they will not have to carry the can of the abuse which they are getting at the present time and which should be placed on other shoulders?

Mr. Marples: I myself would prefer not to discuss these failures while they are the subject of inquiry by the Chief

Inspecting Officer of Railways. Any Member in any part of the House who makes allegations of that nature is not being very helpful at this moment.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the builders of these power units have an extensive export trade to all parts of the world, and that if the railway workshops are to have a monopoly of building power units for the British railway system it will negative any possibility of extending our world-wide export trade in this very important equipment?

Mr. Marples: I am quite certain that the export field should always be borne in mind in this respect.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Manuel: Is the House to take it that the Minister has just given a pledge that the existing railway workshops are to be kept in being under the new Board?

Mr. Marples: The answer is quite clear. The White Paper says that the railway workshops will be vested in the British Railways Board and the responsibility lies with the central Railways Board, so that the Board must decide how the workshops will be used.

Superannuitants

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Transport whether his consultations with the British Transport Commission about the pensions of railway superannuitants have been concluded and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made during the course of the debate on 30th January.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when the statement on the scheme for increasing superannuitants' pensions is made, he will make it perfectly plain whether it is the original scheme as put forward by the British Transport Commission or whether it is that scheme whittled down by negotiations with his Department, so that we may know who really is taking responsibility for meeting the claims of these people?

Mr. Marples: I will arrange to produce full details, to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dame Irene Ward: That is not the answer. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance on which is which?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 54.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. So much noise interferes with business. I called Question No. 54.

Station, Stoke-on-Trent

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Transport whether the station of Stoke-on-Trent has been included in the capital sum allocated for the improvement and extension of railway stations.

Mr. Marples: The Commission has put to me no proposals for major works at Stoke-on-Trent Station. I understand, however, that it proposes to undertake certain minor works there in the course of the electrification work on the London-Midland main line.

Dr. Stross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how very disappointing and unbusinesslike this is? Is he aware that it was originally proposed by the Commission to spend £1 million on this station because of the vast amount of traffic that goes through it and because it is quite inadequate to deal with the business of North Staffordshire? Will he do something himself and suggest that there should be a further allocation and a radical alteration by way of improvement?

Mr. Marples: No, Sir, because this is a matter for the Commission. If it were to put forward proposals to me, I should certainly consider them on their merits.

Mrs. Slater: Will the Minister approach the Commission about it, because a tremendous amount of freight as well as passenger traffic goes through the station and the conditions for the men who work there are simply appalling and it is about time some improvements were made, if only for them?

Mr. Marples: The Commission watches proceedings in this House carefully and I have no doubt that it will note what the hon. Lady has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Orders (Credit Finance)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Transport what action he has taken regarding credit finance for shipbuilding orders.

Mr. Marples: The President of the Board of Trade announced in October that the Export Credits Guarantee Department will offer guarantees to shipbuilders at cheaper rates. This, with the further export credit measures applying to all industries he also announced in October, will, I hope, be of some help to our shipbuilders in securing foreign orders. I am also considering representations the Shipbuilding Conference has made to me about other aspects of the problem of credit.

Mr. Willey: Can the Minister confirm or deny that he appointed an eminent accountant to advise him on this matter? If he has not, will he take such a course? He will realise that this is regarded by the shipbuilding companies as probably one of the more important matters affecting orders.

Mr. Marples: They have made strong representations to me and I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will be thoroughly gone into.

Mr. McMaster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all proper steps should be taken to ensure that British shipbuilding yards do not suffer any disadvantage as compared with European or Far Eastern yards?

Mr. Marples: Yes. They should compete on equal terms.

Shipbuilding Advisory Committee (Sub-Committee's Report)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a further statement on the work of the sub-committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee to consider the future of the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take to combat increasing unemployment in British shipbuilding yards.

Mr. Marples: The sub-committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee is


now preparing an interim report which I hope will be ready before long. The Government will consider carefully any recommendations it may make.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for so informing us, but will he keep the House well informed and make as full a statement as he can when he receives the report?

Mr. Marples: Yes, certainly I will. I am very anxious to receive this report, because the sub-committee comprises members of the union, employers, and independent people, and I am hoping that it will be a valuable report.

Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the urgency of this matter, because in the shipyards of Belfast over 6,000 men are threatened with redundancy within six months?

Mr. Diamond: "You have never had it so good."

Mr. Marples: Certainly I am aware of the urgency and difficulties of the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Albu: Will these discussions include action arising out of the D.S.I.R. Report, and will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the shipbuilders that they do not help their own case by denigrating what is already a Report which they have signed by agreement and which is in fact a compromise?

Mr. Marples: The sub-committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee did see the D.S.I.R. Report, and I have no doubt that it took it into account. As I said before, because on the subcommittee we have both employers and employees, I am hoping that we shall have a good report.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (INCREASED CHARGES AND CONTRIBUTIONS)

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): With permission, I wish to make a statement.
The net estimates of the National Health Service and the Health Departments for next financial year indicate an increase of 11 per cent. over those for this year. This follows upon an increase of over 8 per cent. this year and

over 6 per cent. the year before. The total cost in the current financial year is about £867 million, of which £663 million will be met by the Exchequer.
The Government are determined to continue their policy of developing the Health Service and, in particular, to carry though a long-term programme of modernising our hospitals. These objects would be in danger if the cost of the Service to the Exchequer were allowed to go on increasing at so high a rate. The Government have, therefore, decided that certain steps to reduce the net estimates are necessary.
The cost of a number of items for which charges are made has increased substantially since the charges were last fixed, and it is proposed to adjust them.
The charges for dentures will be increased by amounts ranging from 5s. to 15s. On the other hand, in order to put more emphasis on conservation, the charges for dental treatment will not be raised and children and expectant and nursing mothers will be relieved in future of the present charges for dentures.
The charges for spectacles will be increased by 5s. a pair, with a higher charge for bifocal and multifocal lenses. However, it is proposed that children aged 10 or over shall no longer be charged for spectacle lenses in any type of National Health Service frame.
The maximum charge for amenity beds in hospitals in England and Wales will be doubled from 1st March. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
The cost of the pharmaceutical services this year will be about £92 million gross, £80 million net. Since the charge for prescriptions was fixed at 1s. an item in 1956, the average cost of an item has increased from 5s. 1½d. to 7s. 4d. The Government are proposing to raise the prescription charge to 2s. per item from 1st March. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] We believe that this measure is necessary, along with others already taken or in hand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]—to restrain the increase in the cost of the pharmaceutical services.
The Government have decided that from 1st June orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamin tablets under the Welfare Foods Scheme will be sold at prices which cover the cost.
The existing arrangements for refund of prescription and other charges will remain in force, and arrangements will be made through the National Assistance Board for the free issue of vitamin supplements.
The Government also propose to increase the National Health Service contribution with effect from the beginning of July next by 1s. a week for the employed man—10d. from the employee and 2d. from the employer—and by the appropriate amounts for other insurance groups. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have never had it so good."] This will increase the yield from the contribution by about £49 million in a full year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will table the necessary Ways and Means Resolution tonight.
A Bill relating to the dental and optical charges will be presented tomorrow. Regulations altering the charges for prescriptions and amenity beds will be laid on Friday, and a new Welfare Foods Order will be made shortly.
All these changes apply to Scotland, except that relating to amenity beds, for which in Scotland the charges are adjusted automatically.
The effect of all the measures which I have announced will be to reduce the net Health Estimates by about £50 million in 1961–62 and about £65 million in a full year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the comprehensive list of charges which be has just announced represents, in our view, the biggest single assault on the whole principle underlying the National Health Service since it was conceived, and a very serious inroad into the whole Welfare State? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Is he aware that the charges which he has announced are so comprehensive in their nature that he even tried to take credit for the one or two charges which he has not increased? Clearly, the matter is far too big to deal with in question and answer, and we shall have debates on the subject shortly.
However, I should just like to say, at this stage, that we take particular exception to the increase in the National Health Service contribution, which, of course, is a poll tax and falls most heavily on those less able to bear it.
As for the prescription charge, does the Minister not recall that a Committee advised him that his Department would probably save money by abolishing the prescription charge altogether? Is he aware that we regard the charging for welfare foods at cost price as being a peculiarly mean step to take?
Finally, the Minister once resigned from office. Does he not think that as the Minister responsible for a great service like the National Health Service he would have done better to return to the back benches rather than agree to these charges?

Mr. Powell: On the contrary, I should have been betraying my trust if I had agreed to an increase in the budgetary cost of this Service, for it would inevitably have resulted in the development of the Service itself having to be curtailed or limited if these steps had not been taken. The hon. Gentleman referred to the National Health Service contribution as a poll tax. It falls, of course, to be considered in the context of the whole economic position of the country, of the earnings of those who will pay it and of the tax system as a whole, but the proportion of average earnings which will, in future, be collected by way of the stamp, is not appreciably greater, in the nearest practicable comparison, than it was in 1948.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the measures he has announced would not be directed in any way towards reducing the expenditure on the hospital building programme and on the improvements to the National Health Service? Will he bear in mind that when Sir Stafford Cripps imposed a ceiling of £400 million on the Health Service, he did much to retard its development? We do not want that to happen again.

Mr. Powell: It is exactly those considerations which the Government have in mind in taking these steps.

Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) proves what all of us felt in the House—and certainly many people in the country—when the right hon. Gentleman was appointed Minister of Health?
It seems to us that a Minister of Health should, in the Cabinet, be fighting to ensure that we have a good Health Service. I accuse the Minister of not only doing far from that, but of having incited the Cabinet to put these charges up. Is he not aware that these charges, particularly those for prescriptions, and the increases in the contribution, will fall heaviest on those people who really cannot afford to meet them?
Has he given any thought to those who are just under the National Assistance scale and who are finding it very difficult to pay even 1s. per item? Has he given any thought to the disabled who have to pay for these items? Has he given any thought to the low wage earner, who will have this poll tax put on his earnings?
I hope that the country will show very clearly in the next few days how disappointed and, indeed, how disgusted it is with the Minister and with his Government.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Lady referred, in particular, to possible hardship in connection with prescription charges. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) announced the last increase in these charges, he offered—and that offer was punctiliously fulfilled—to look at any circumstances of possible hardship, arising out of it, which might be brought to his notice. I renew that offer and pledge now.
As regards what the hon. Lady said in general, I believe that it is recognised in this House, and in the country, that, with the present rate of increase of the cost of the Service to the Exchequer, the alternative is between the measures which I have announced and a limitation of the expansion of the Service. If the House, or the country, has to choose between limiting the expansion of the Service and the measures which I have announced, I have no doubt what the decision will be.

Mr. Nabarro: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the fundamental considerations in this matter price stability and the growth of the national economy? Do not all the measures that he has announced today contribute to that end in the ultimate? Would he not

agree that the aggregation of reduction of net cost of this Service, of £50 million this year and £65 million in a full year, represents only 8 per cent. of the total and ought to be judged in that perspective?

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Nabarro: Only hon. as yet.

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is quite right in reminding the House that there is an inevitable connection between the national income and what can be deployed upon a particular service, and that it is the duty of those responsible for the respective services to see that the priorities are preserved. By measures of this kind we ensure that the essential and growing elements of the National Health Service can go forward unimpeded.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, whatever they may say, realise that our magnificent Health Service is worse now even than that in Western Germany? Is he further aware that from his side of the House we were told, "Don't let Labour ruin it"? Members opposite have now completely obliterated the purpose of the Health Service.

Mr. Powell: I am not prepared to institute a comparison between our National Health Service and the service in any other country, but I can tell the House that the Health Service in this country is steadily providing a better and better service, that over the last five years the number of in-patients treated in hospital has gone up by 10 per cent., that the number of out-patients treated has gone up by 5 per cent., and the number of domiciliary consultations by 30 per cent., and that the most essential elements in the Service—the human material—the nurses and doctors, both inside and outside the hospital service, are steadily increasing in numbers. The Service is steadily and regularly making progress.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the present Prime Minister introduced the individual prescription charge in 1956, when we were in a financial mess, will the right


hon. Gentleman tell us why it is that whenever the Government get into an economic mess it is always the patients and others in greatest need who have to bear the cost? Will he also say, since the main increase in costs has been the profits of the pharmaceutical manufacturers, why he has not taken it out of them instead of out of the patients?
Finally, is he aware that every time these charges have been announced, successive Budgets—usually before elections—have not remitted them, but that, instead, there have been big taxation hand-outs? Will he take it from us that if these measures are to be associated with a hand-out to Surtax payers in the Budget, or with any similar concession, the parry opposite can expect the most bitter—

Mr. Nabarro: Where is the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt)?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We make better progress if we have one hon. Member at a time.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if that occurs, then the party opposite can expect the most bitter fight over the Finance Bill that it has ever had? Will he tell us. in view of the posters which we see all over the country, whether this is what the Government mean when they say that "the Conservatives care"?

Mr. Powell: I can with confidence leave my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer for his own Budget. The right hon. Gentleman said that these measures were taking it out of the patients, but it would be the patients who would suffer if the development of the National Health Service were held up.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have themselves had experience of this. They put a ceiling on the cost of the Service. I want the Service to continue to develop along well-thought-out lines. That is what will be to the benefit of the patients, and that will be the evidence that the Conservative Party cares.

Mr. Gaitskell: As the Minister's statement constitutes a major assault on the National Health Service, and as, in our view, it is desirable that it should be debated as a whole, I give notice that we shall immediately table a Motion of censure upon the Government.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Immigration

Mr. Osborne: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 17th February, I shall call attention to the need to limit immigration into this country, and move a Resolution.

Capital Gains Tax

Mr. Millan: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 17th February, I shall call attention to the need to introduce a capital gains tax, and move a Resolution.

Advisory Council on Scientfic Policy (Report)

Mr. Sydney Irving: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 17th February, I shall call attention to the Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

CROWN ESTATE

Bill to make new provision in place of the Crown Lands Acts, 1829 to 1936, as to the powers exerciseable by the Crown Estate Commissioners for the management of the Crown Estate, to transfer to the management of the Minister of Works certain land of the Crown Estate in Regent's Park and to extend or clarify the powers of that Minister in Regent's Park, to amend the Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act, 1923, as it affects the Crown Estate, to amend the law as to escheated land, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Brooke, Mr. Soames, and Lord John Hope; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

RENTS

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Rent Act, 1957; to provide stability of rents and security of tenure for tenants holding residential premises which by virtue of the same Act became released from rent control; to extend the jurisdiction of rent tribunals to unfurnished tenancies; to provide for the giving of information by landlords to tenants; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
It cannot be seriously disputed by anyone that the Rent Act, 1957, has caused very serious hardship to tens of thousands of tenants, not only in the London area, but in most of the large provincial cities. This is a problem which is not confined to London, although it may be most acute in London, as is shown by the very large number of signatories to the petitions which have been presented to the House every day of this week, and which are likely to continue to be presented on subsequent occasions. Those petitions are an indication of the mounting indignation at the operation of the Rent Act and are wholesale protests against the injustices and iniquities that so many tenants have suffered from extortionate landlords.
I need not elaborate the point that these grievances have resulted from the decontrol legislation of 1957. as a result of which about 400,000 dwellings were decontrolled by reason of their rateable value and, what has proved even more serious, nearly half a million dwellings have become decontrolled as a result of creeping decontrol, an effect which was not foreseen when the legislation of 1957 was introduced.
As a result of decontrol, whenever there has been a change of occupier—and the landlord has often brought about a change of occupier by very dubious mean—experience has shown that intolerable hardship has been caused to numerous tenants, particularly to old-age pensioners and others living on small fixed incomes.
There is no dispute about the evils which have resulted from the Rent Act. The Minister himself has admitted them. In his circular of 18th August last, he drew attention to the fact that some landlords were imposing terms on their tenants which he himself said were quite

unreasonable. He reminded the public that he had drawn the attention of the House to the fact that there were some swindlers among landlords in the market and he also drew attention to the fact that reports had come into his possession to show that new landlords were exploiting local shortages of accommodation by demanding rents grossly out of keeping with the age and condition of the property offered.
There is thus no dispute about the situation which calls for a remedy, and the object of the Bill is to suggest that the only way in which these evils can be cured is by amending legislation. The Minister has tried three other methods, all of which have failed.
In his circular, he appealed to the good will of landlords, asking them to be more reasonable and less harsh in their treatment of tenants. Experience has shown that that appeal has failed. He then suggested that people might escape the perils of the Rent Act by moving out of the Central London area. But experience has shown that in the districts on the periphery of London high rents are being demanded and obtained from tenants of whom many can ill afford to pay. In Ealing, landlords are charging four or five times the gross value of the property and in Putney they are charging seven times as much. Yesterday, we heard of a case in which a tenant was being charged thirteen times the gross value. Tenants, therefore, cannot escape from the perils of the Rent Act by moving from one district to another.
The Minister finally suggested that the evil could be cured by persuading local authorities to make use of compulsory purchase orders, which he said he would confirm. Experience has shown that that hope was completely fallacious, for a variety of reasons, but chiefly because of the delay and cumbrous machinery required for obtaining a compulsory purchase order and because of the difficulty of giving the tenant protection in the meantime, quite apart from the inordinate burden which such a process would have placed on local authorities.
I therefore suggest that the only way in which this admitted evil can be cured is by legislation to amend the Rent Act. I seek leave to introduce a Bill which would achieve seven objectives. First, it


would give tenants in three-year tenancies a right of renewal for a further period of years at existing rents. I make that suggestion because the Minister originally hoped that three years would be sufficient to provide a free market at stable prices, but that hope has proved entirely fallacious and the period of three years has been found to be inadequate.
Secondly, the Bill would provide an upper ceiling on the rent of all tenancies decontrolled under the 1957 Act. That ceiling would be a fixed multiple of the gross value.
Thirdly, the Bill would abolish creeping decontrol, which has proved thoroughly pernicious and far more extensive than was ever contemplated. The Minister's own report has shown that the percentage increase of rents charged to new tenants has been twice that charged to existing tenants, the result of creeping decontrol.
Fourthly, the Bill will extend the jurisdiction of rent tribunals so as to give them power to fix rents in the case of furnished lettings as well as unfurnished lettings, and also to fix conditions of the tenancy.
Fifthly, the Bill would prohibit landlords from charging premiums in respect of any tenancies controlled before 1957, or their renewal. I am not sure whether hon. Members realise that in many instances landlords are not content with making a quite savage increase of rent, but, as a condition of granting a new tenancy, also demand a large premium, sometimes running into hundreds of pounds.
Sixthly, the Bill would give every tenant the right to require the name and address of his landlord and to withhold his rent until that information was given. That suggestion is made because experience shows that some of the worst landlords tend to conceal their identity under a cloak of anonymity. This provision would have a very salutary effect and it would be only common justice if every tenant had the legal right to know the identity and address of his landlord.
Finally, the Bill that I have in mind would stop the growing practice whereby a number of landlords, as a condition of granting a new tenancy, are requiring tenants to undertake responsibility for all repairs, external as well as internal repairs, something which is contrary to

what the Minister has always contemplated was the object of the Rent Act.
I recognise that the Minister has given some assurance that he will introduce a Bill to deal with the limited matter. That promise was given before Christmas, but it has not yet been fulfilled, and I do not know when it will be. The reason why I ask leave to introduce my Bill is that I do not consider that this important matter and the injustice suffered by tenants under the Rent Act are matters that can be safely left to the Minister or to the Government.
This is a matter which affects all hon. Members, and the Bill would give us a wider opportunity of correcting the manifold abuses that now exist. I am sorry to say this, but I consider that this matter is so serious that it cannot be left in the hands of the present Minister. I regret that he has shown himself to be callous in his disregard of the undoubted hardship that is being suffered by tenants all over the country.

4.2 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: The object of the Bill which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) seeks leave to introduce is simply to reimpose control on all those houses that have been released by the operation of the 1957 Act. The hon. Gentleman described his proposed Bill as an amending Measure, but in many respects it would really amount to the repeal of that Act.
The persistence of the hon. Gentleman is remarkable. He reminds me of one of those ageing warriors who returns again and again to the theme of the old battles that we had in the last Parliament in order to refight them, but I think that we should spend very little more time on this Measure. I therefore rise to oppose his Motion for leave to introduce the Bill.
The 1957 Act, and the policy that lay behind it, has been accepted by a Majority of the electorate. It was endorsed at the last General Election.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: They had no alternative.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I would like to remind the House that the Rent Act had three main objects. First, we wanted landlords to keep their houses


available for letting instead of selling them whenever they could obtain vacant possession. which had become the invariable practice before the passage of the Act. In that, the Measure has largely succeeded, otherwise the present agitation about these high rents could hardly have arisen.
Secondly, we wanted to make the rents yield a sufficient return for proper repairs and maintenance. That, too, has been achieved to a large extent, though I agree that it is disturbing to read in the Rent Act inquiry that so many tenants are not insisting on repairs being carried out. There has been no lack of publicity about how to go about it, and it is rather extraordinary to find that three-quarters of the people who say that they have asked for repairs to be carried out have never bothered to fill in Form G. This is not a ground for changing the law. It is a case for local councillors, welfare visitors, and so on, to educate tenants both as to their rights and how to secure them.
Thirdly, and perhaps most important, it was hoped that by permitting a fair return we would encourage the private building of houses to let and the modernisation of old property. Judging from my constituency, a good deal of modernisation is in progress, and, in the main, to let. However, I concede that building for letting has not materialised. This is a considerable disappointment, because there is a large number of people who are able and even anxious to pay higher rents for new houses, but who, for one reason or another, cannot buy. If their needs could be fulfilled, they would move and make more room for people lower on the income scale.
The Opposition bear a heavy share of the responsibility for deterring the private developer. Who, after all, will invest money in property which is liable to be municipalised on terms verging on confiscation if, in a moment of folly, the electorate were to return another Socialist Government?
It is no part of my case to pretend that the housing situation is everywhere satisfactory, although it has improved out of all recognition since 1951. There are some bad landlords, many of them men who came into the business recently.

That, too, I am afraid, is the inevitable aftermath of twenty years' stagnation on the market. The principal sanction against them is the threat of compulsory purchase, and the hon. Gentleman has no ground at the moment for saying that that has failed.
However, suppose that it did prove insufficient. That would be no sufficient ground for repealing the Rent Act, though it might be ground for harsher sanctions and for bringing these evil men within the arm of the criminal law. I would not shrink from that, but cases of exploitation are happily rare. None the less, I recognise that there is a certain amount of unrest among tenants who are in no way being exploited. That is because too many people still find it hard to accept the facts about rising prices and higher indices as applied to rental values. Twenty years of frozen rents have frozen their outlook.
The Times, last September, calculated that the increased indices alone would support an increase of rents of about 200 per cent. above the 1956 level. In fact, the evidence of the inquiry shows that increases have been substantially below this, particularly in the case of sitting tenants. In the highest case, that of a small house in the London area, the average was 145 per cent. Again, years of security of tenure have led many people to think that the mere fact of having lived for a long time in a particular area entitles them to go on living there, if necessary at someone else's expense, all the days of their lives, and thereafter for the house to pass to their children.
We on this side believe that people who cannot afford an expensive area should, when they retire, endeavour to move somewhere cheaper. That is particularly important for those who live in the London area. Nevertheless, there still remain a minority of tenants who can afford neither to pay nor to move. We recognise that, but that is not a ground for restoring rent control. The remedy lies in the 3 million council houses that exist, a number which will suffice, and more than suffice, if only they are allocated to the people who really need them. Those local authorities who refuse either to apply some sort of needs


tests to new applicants or to apply differential rent schemes to existing tenants are simply not using subsidised housing for the purpose for which it was intended.
Socialists believe that housing should be provided as a social service. We on this side believe that wherever possible—and I stress wherever possible—it should be paid for privately. That is the real issue between us. Yet, to the extent that the social service concept is applied, surely the cost must, in fairness. be borne by the community as a whole, as it is in the case of council housing. Surely it is the height of dishonesty to seek to charge it up to one section of the community, namely, the owners of houses.
Then again, to the extent that housing is treated as a social service this is surely inconsistent with extreme security of tenure. If tenants are to be paid and subsidised out of public funds it is not unreasonable to require them to live where the houses are available. It was the disregard of these two principles that made rent control as the years went by, ever more unjust and ever more inefficient.

Mr. J. T. Price: Rubbish.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: As a temporary expedient to meet an emergency it may have been justifiable. As a permanent institution it would be intolerable. To reimpose it now would be an act of reactionary folly without parallel even in the history of the party opposite.

Mr. Michael Stewart: On a point of order. Before the House proceeds to a Division on this matter, could you, Mr. Speaker, inform us as to the position, in voting in such a Division, of hon. Members who are the owners of decontrolled property, or are shareholders in property-owning companies?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter which is the responsibility of the individual Member. I cannot give guidance about it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 237.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Tomney, Frank


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Short, Edward
Wainwright, Edwin


Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Warbey, William


Pavitt, Laurence
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Watkins, Tudor


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Weitzman, David


Peart, Frederick
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pentland, Norman
Small, William
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Popplewell, Ernest
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Prentice, R. E
Sorensen, R. W.
Whitlock, William


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilkins, W. A.


Probert, Arthur
Steele, Thomas
Willey, Frederick


Proctor, W. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Randall, Harry
Stones, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Rankin, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Redhead, E. C.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Reid, William
Swingler, Stephen
Woof, Robert


Reynolds, G. W.
Sylvester, George
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Symonds, J. B.
Zilliacus, K.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)



Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ross, William
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Mr. Mellish and Mr Albert Evans.


Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Thornton, Ernest

Division No. 35.]
AYES
[4.12 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Diamond, John
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Albu, Austen
Driberg, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Awbery, Stan
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Fernyhough, E.
Kenyon, Clifford


Beaney, Alan
Fitch, Alan
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Fletcher, Eric
Lawson, George


Blackburn, F.
Foot, Dingle
Ledger, Ron


Blyton, William
Forman, J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Boardman, H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lipton, Marcus


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bowles, Frank
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McCann, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gourlay, Harry
MacColl, James


Brockway, A. Fenner
Greenwood, Anthony
Mclnnes, James


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grey, Charles
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Beiper)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mackie, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
McLeavy, Frank


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gunter, Ray
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Callaghan, James
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Manuel, A. C.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mapp, Charles


Chetwynd, George
Hannan, William
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Collick, Percy
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Marsh, Richard


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hayman, F. H.
Mayhew, Christopher


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Healey, Denis
Millan, Bruce


Cronin, John
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Milne, Edward J.


Crosland, Anthony
Hilton, A. V.
Mitchison, G. R.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Holman, Percy
Monslow, Walter


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Houghton, Douglas
Moody, A. S.


Darling, George
Howell, Charles A.
Morris, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhopdda, E.)
Hoy, James H.
Mort, D. L.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moyle, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, Harold


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hunter, A. E.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Deer, George
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oliver, G. H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oram, A. E.


Delargy, Hugh
Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Will


Dempsey, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Paget, R. T.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Farr, John
Joseph, Sir Keith


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Fell, Anthony
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Arbuthnot, John
Finlay, Graeme
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Fisher, Nigel
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Balniel, Lord
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony


Barber, Anthony
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Kimball, Marcus


Barlow, Sir John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kitson, Timothy


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Freeth, Denzil
Lagden, Godfrey


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gammans, Lady
Lambton, Viscount


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Gardner, Edward
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Berkeley, Humphry
Gibson-Watt, David
Langford-Holt, d.


Basins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Leaysy, J. A.


Bldgood, John C.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lindsay, Martin


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Goodhart, Philip
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bishop, F. P.
Gower, Raymond
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Black, Sir Cyril
Gram, Rt. Hon. William
Longden, Gilbert


Bossom, Clive
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bourne-Arton, A.
Green, Alan
MacArthur, tan


Box, Donald
Gresham Cooke, R.
McLaren, Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Brewis, John
Gurden, Harold
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bryan, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maddan, Martin


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maitland, Sir John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macolesf'd)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas


Channon, H. P. G.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Marten, Nell


Chataway, Christopher
Hastings. S.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hay, John
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mawby, Ray


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mayrion, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Cleaver, Leonard
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Mills, Stratton


Cole, Norman
Hendry, Forbes
Montgomery, Fergus


Cooper, A. E.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Corfield, F. V.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Costain, A. P.
Hill, Mrs. Evellne (Wythenshawe)
Nabarro, Gerald


Coulson, J. M.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Noble, Michael


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nugent, Sir Richard


Crowder, F. P.
Hobson, John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Cunningham, Knox
Hocking, Philip N.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Curran, Charles
Holland, Philip
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Dance, James
Hollingworth, John
Page. John (Harrow, West)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Deedes, W. F.
Hopkins, Alan
Partridge, E.


de Ferranti, Basil
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Peel, John


Doughty, Charles
Hughes-Young, Michael
Percival, Ian


du Cann, Edward
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, John


Duncan, Sir James
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Eden, John
Jackson, John
Pott, Percivall


Elliot, Capt. W. (Carshalton)
James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Jennings, J. C.
Prior, J. M. L.


Errington, Sir Eric
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Johnson, Erie (Blackley)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John



Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Proudfoot, Wilfred

Quinnell, Miss J.
Tapsell, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wall, Patrick


Renton, David
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Teeling, William
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Ridsdale, Julian
Temple, John M.
Watts, James


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Whitelaw, William


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thompson, Richard (Croydon S.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Seymour, Leslie
Thomton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sharples, Richard
They, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wise, A. R.


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Skeet, T. H. H.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Tweedsmulr, Lady
Woodnutt, Mark


Spearman, Sir Alexander
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Woollam, John


Speir, Rupert
Vane, W. M. F.
Worsley, Marcus


Stanley, Hon. Richard
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John



Stodart, J. A.
Vickers, Miss Joan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett and


Studholme, Sir Henry
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Mr. Goodhew.


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Orders of the Day — HYDE PARK (UNDERGROUND PARKING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.20 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have to inform the House that I have it in Command from Her Majesty to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Before I come on to the Bill itself and the question of off-street car parking, I should like to say that one of the great features of modern times has been the immense growth of traffic especially in the urban areas. This impact has been felt mostly. I think, in big cities such as Birmingham, where the local authority is the traffic authority and where they have their inner ring road, and so on, and in London, where I myself have special responsibilities. Of course, there are many ways of trying to ease the traffic congestion we now suffer from, and I should like to give a few illustrations of what is happening in London before I come to the question of the provision of off-street car parking.
In London, the new Road Traffic Act has made much easier the job of tackling the London traffic and I express again my appreciation to the Opposition for the part which they played in assisting with that Measure. I hope that they will give the same assistance with this Measure. The London Traffic Management Unit, which has now been established, has a number of expert traffic engineers, and the methods by which we are tackling the problem are numerous. There are many one-way streets. I think that the House will have had experience of Park Lane and the East Carriageway and what a difference it has made to London traffic. In London we are embarking on one-way traffic streams. The largest will commence at Tottenham Court and Gower Street on 16th

May. I wish that it could have been before, but it is on that date because of the difficulty about trolley buses at the north end of Tottenham Court Road. These are only some of a number of schemes which are coming in.
We are trying to eliminate right-hand turns in two-way streets. Any hon. Member who drives a car will know the difficulty of going east along the Bayswater Road and turning into Hyde Park. That has been a great cause of traffic congestion. There, the right-hand turn will be eliminated and many other right-hand turns will be eliminated—in the Marylebone Road, and so on.
Another thing that we are trying is urban clearways. One will be to London Airport. I am certain that when we mark the road to the airport—and during the peak hours we shall remove standing vehicles—we shall get a far greater volume of traffic moving to and from the west and London. Another study which the new Traffic Management Unit is making is to try to get some arteries, as it were, in the inner part of London, within a two-mile radius of Aldwych. We have already earmarked 50 miles of roads which, we hope, will be the main arteries and we shall try to ease the traffic flow on those roads.
For example on the east-west route namely, Sussex Gardens to Euston Road and Bayswater Road to High Holborn and five north-south routes—Park Lane, Edgware Road, Baker Street, Gloucester Place, Charing Cross Road, Tottenham Court Road, Hampstead Road, Kings-way, Eversholt Street, Houndsditch, the Minories, Middlesex Street and Russell Street.
I believe that main arteries should be kept free for moving traffic. In addition, we are to earmark a further 40 miles of streets which will be a link between the inner and the outer area, especially during peak periods. Then there are such things as new works like the Hammersmith flyover where, every time I pass I see that great progress has been made, and the Hyde Park scheme; and we are to start the Chiswick-Langley elevated road, which will be the motorway out to the West. When it is constructed over parts of the Great West Road I am certain that it will make a great deal of difference for people travelling to and from London by air.
In London itself, we have, I am glad to say, an origin and destination survey. We have had discussions with the London County Council which have been both amicable and agreeable. A team of consultants has been appointed which will have the benefit of the experience of some of the leading United States traffic engineers and, also, hon. Members will notice, in the replanning of urban areas, the great emphasis now being placed on segregating the pedestrian from the motor car. There are all these things and many more, but they do not alter what must be the order of priorities for roads in our city centres.
I maintain that the first priority on a street in the centre of a city should be for moving traffic. Then, some streets are wider than others and the flow is determined by the inter-sections and not necessarily the width of the street. Therefore, where we have spare space it should be used in one of two ways, for the loading and unloading necessary for the commercial life in the city and secondly, it should be used for temporary parking by those people who wish to come to the city to transact business. I have always maintained that spare space should be used for eight temporary parkers for one hour a day each, rather than for one man for eight hours a day.
When one comes to permanent parking I am bound to say that we must provide off-street parking for the motorist. Some people prefer to live in the centre of a city and park their cars, and provision must be made for them. There are those who will want to come to the city and leave their car for most of the day, or for half a day. They should be parked off the street and pay an economic price for parking. I wish to say a word about temporary parking and parking meters—

Mr. John Wells: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the matter of arterial ways—he said a great deal about arteries to the West—can he say something specific about the Old Kent Road being the gateway to the Continent?

Mr. R. J. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, this is a debate on the Second Reading debate of the Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Bill. I am quite

willing that the discussion should be wide, but if we are to have questions about travel facilities through the whole of London and the outlying roads we should like to know whether that is in order.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged. I was wondering about it, too. I gather that the Bill seeks powers to make a cavern under Hyde Park which will be filled with vehicles coming on the congested arteries into our City. I suppose that in so far as the need for accommodation under the Park is related to those roads, it is proper to refer to them otherwise, I should have thought that it was not.

Mr. Marples: I only used that, Mr. Speaker, by way of illustration; to say that whatever else we did by way of traffic engineering it would not rid us of the necessity to provide off-street parking in the centre of London and to use what space was in the streets for temporary parking. I was seeking to come to the Government's parking policy so as to justify the Bill—

Mr. A. C. Manuel: On that point—and I mentioned this in a previous debate—is the Minister saying that on some of the main urban roads out of the city he is thinking of a complete ban, in the interests of safety?

Mr. Marples: We are making a survey of the principal arterial roads to the centre of London so that we can see that these roads, especially during peak hours, are kept free from stationary vehicles. That would mean that a large number of motorists would be able to move in and out during those periods. The first experiment is an urban clearway from Knightsbridge to London Airport.
As you yourself, Mr. Speaker, will know from your constituency, when we provide meters it is more than ever necessary to provide off-street parking. In the centre of London—because this car park under Hyde Park deals mostly with the Mayfair end of the West End of London—we have had a great growth of meters. We have found that system to be the best way of regulating the traffic and keeping it moving, and traffic wardens and the ticket system have made it even more effective. In the early days there was a great deal


of opposition to parking meters, but with each successive scheme the apposition has been less.
The growth of meters in London has been very rapid. In 1958, there was one scheme for 650 meters; in 1959, one scheme for 480 meters; in 1960, four schemes for 3,530 meters, and already, in 1961, there are six schemes in the centre of London for 3,200 meters, and two further schemes far 1,580 meters at Woolwich and Croydon. Local authorities are considering further schemes—

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Before we get to the Bill, can the Minister tell us whether he has considered the use of parking meters for advertisement purposes? It might be useful.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That would be far beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Marples: Observing your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall probably discuss this with the hon. and learned Member outside the House, where it will be in order—

Mr. William Baxter: What is the net revenue from the parking meters, and what profit do we make?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that that is within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Marples: Again, therefore, I shall not be able to give an answer.
It is quite clear that it is the policy of the Government to have these parking meters, and it is my earnest desire to give all possible help to local authorities that wish to have meters, discs, or whatever system they choose. I hope shortly to discuss more energetic action with the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee and the Association of Municipal Corporations, which have indicated their willingness to help.
We have now to consider the question of off-street parking, because if we are to have these meters in the centre of London it is only fair to the motorist to give him a place to which he can take his car. That was one reason why the Government were very anxious to include this Bill in this Session's legislation; so that the work could start at

Hyde Park—if the House approves the Bill—while the present road works there are continuing. I think that it would be folly to let those present road works reach completion and then, six months later, tear them up, and start digging a hole in the centre of Hyde Park.
In the centre of London, the local authorities and private enterprise are between them getting on well with the job of providing off-street parking. In the Cities of London and Westminster, and in the boroughs of St. Marylebone, Holborn, St. Pancras and Finsbury, 12,000 car spaces have either been provided or are being planned in this way. The City of London has plans to provide, either by itself or in combination with private developers, a total of 7,000 car spaces, most of which will be ready within five years.
In the Mayfair area, the Westminster City Council is building a garage at Audley Square-Waverton Street, which will take 360 cars, and has plans for garages at Savile Row and Whitcombe Street to accommodate another 600 cars. Private enterprise has completed a garage at Curzon Street House for 100 vehicles, and one is projected in Bourdon Street for another 200 cars.
Although the Government have firmly decided against giving aid from central funds for the provision of off-street parking, we do wish to help in any way we can, apart from a direct monetary grant. In the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act we included provisions to make it easier for local authorities to provide garages, and also to make possible maximum development by allowing, for instance, shops to be combined with garages.
I remember that during the Committee stage of that Measure, hon. Members on both sides wondered whether advantage would be taken of that provision. I am very glad to say that quite a number of local authorities have indicated to me that this very proposal will help them to put car parks where, normally, they would not have been able to put them—because it would have been uneconomic—by combining them with shops, and so on.
Mayfair, of course, is an extremely difficult place in which to provide off-street parking, because of the expensiveness of sites. That is where Hyde Park


comes in as really a godsend to the Government. The site is there, and we believe that the Bill will be very valuable, as it will make provision for an underground garage to be built in the northeast corner of the Park. For what I hoped would prove to be for the convenience of the House, I have had a map prepared. I thought that that would make it easier for hon. Members to follow the proposals in the Bill than would a long description telling them exactly where the garage would be.
This garage would also make it easier, not only for people coming to the centre of London and for people living there, but for the hotels in Park Lane and Oxford Street. There, a great deal of congestion is caused by chauffeur-driven cars hanging about the entrances for hours on end. By the Bill, they will be able to get accommodation in this garage, and I hope that that will assist matters considerably.
Underground garages beneath the Royal Parks were advocated in 1951 by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, but I think that it is only with the advent of meters that such garages have become commercially viable. I have considered this scheme in great detail with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and his staff, to whom I am very grateful for their cooperation, and for the time and energy that they have devoted to the scheme. Both my right hon. Friend and I are satisfied that an acceptable scheme can be devised without unduly harming the Park's amenities. We are also satisfied that it will fit in with the road system—there is no point in erecting a garage that is too big, and carries so many cars that it is impossible for them to filter into and out of the adjoining roads.
This is purely an enabling Bill. It is needed because there are long-standing statutory restrictions on the power of the Crown to dispose of land in the Royal Parks, whether by lease or otherwise. The Bill does not authorise specific work; it simply enables me, as the Minister of Transport, to let land within an authorised area for an underground garage, for a filling station and for ordinary ancillary garage activities—subject to a number of important restrictions. When referring to ancillary services I have in mind very minor repairs and such things as the washing

of cars, but nothing in the nature of major repairs will be allowed. Petrol pumps will be included.
There is no limit on the duration of the powers, but the maximum lease permitted by the Bill is ninety-nine years, and at the expiration of any lease granted the Minister of Transport will consult the Minister of Works about future action. The authorised area for the scheme is 36 acres—

Mr. Mitchison: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to that, I hope that he will say something about the rent. Letting implies a rent, and I hope that he will tell us by whom the rent will be payable, the conditions, and so on. We on this side are very interested in the financial aspect.

Mr. Marples: I certainly will, and if, when the hon. and learned Member makes his speech, he will say that he wishes for further elucidation, I shall take careful note of what he says and shall answer in the winding-up speech at the end of the debate.
The authorised area is 36 acres. This provides for accesses, underground roads, emergency exits and all that sort of thing. It gives the developer some room for manœuvre in the silting and design of the garage itself. The area developed as a garage would be considerably smaller, probably about six acres, with a capacity for 1,000 or 1,100 cars. The site chosen was based upon the needs for an open space free of trees, for the best situation for access from neighbouring roads and causing minimum disturbance to amenity 'in the Park and also to be as close as possible to the source of custom.
The location of the accesses is defined on the map which has been published as a White Paper. The accesses have been agreed with the Ministry of Works after full consultation with London County Council and the police. The location of the petrol station is shown at the foot of the ramp at the eastern end. The ramped vehicle access and probably one pedestrian exit are outside the park fence near the eastern road and other eastern exits will probably be underground, with the Park Lane system.
At the end of Park Lane many pedestrians cross when the lights are green for pedestrians and red for motor traffic,


but it is certainly a hazardous business for the pedestrians. Ultimately, there will be pedestrian subways linked with this underground garage in Hyde Park.
The House will notice that the filling station is to be at the bottom of the eastern ramp. It will be a 12 ft. ramp which will not be seen, nor is it unsightly. The design and signs will be agreed with the Ministry of Works and subject to the normal planning procedure of London County Council. There will be a small number of ventilation shafts among the trees. These may be concealed in park shelters and their placing will be agreed with the Minister of Works. There will be certain emergency exits in the park and also smoke exits in the form of pavement lights.
Some trees will be affected, but the number is not likely to exceed 15. The precise details will depend on the detailed layout. The Minister of Works, under the Bill, will retain absolute control over interference with trees. There will be the absolute minimum of interference with the amenities and we shall ensure that it is kept to the minimum. Vehicle accesses on the eastern and north side of the park fence will have to be set back very slightly to allow for vehicle and pedestrian access from outside the park fence. The civil engineering technique of what is known as "cut and cover" will be used.
In other words, the whole of the cut will be in the centre of Hyde Park and will be covered afterwards and amenity interests will be taken very great care of. This is much cheaper than the method of normal tunnelling and it will mean that the Parade Ground, used for ceremonial purposes, will be restored completely. The accesses to the garage and some emergency exits will have ventilation shafts and smoke vents flush with the surface.
In all this work I intend to work in closest collaboration with the Minister of Works. I shall consult him in particular on the proposed terms of whatever lease is granted and on the materials used in the work. The Bill allows me to make regulations to control public order subject to development. Public control on the Park surface will continue to be exercised by the Minister of Works

under his Royal Parks regulations and the developer of the garage will have to submit proposals to London County Council for planning approval. He will also be bound by all normal fire control and safety requirements.
If and when Parliament approves the Bill, I propose to grant a lease on a competitive basis for the purpose of building and operating the garage The Bill would permit me to grant such a lease either to a local authority or to a private developer. Discussions have already taken place with Westminster City Council, but at the moment it seems unlikely that the Council would be interested in taking a head lease. It therefore seems most likely that private enterprise will be entrusted with this task.
A number of firms have already shown interest and, as I said in reply to a Question on 30th November, such firms have been given some information on the conditions likely to apply. This, of course, has been done entirely without commitment.

Mr. Mellish: What about London County Council?

Mr. Marples: The local authority concerned is Westminster City Council and I approached that authority. It would be normal for Westminster City Council, as it is doing all the developments in Waverton Street. and so on, to be approached.

Mr. Mitchison: Is there any precedent for constructing an underground car park?

Mr. Marples: There is a precedent in Finsbury Square, in the City. That is a private enterprise car park.

Mr. Mitchison: For how many cars?

Mr. Marples: I should have to have notice of that question. I do not know at the moment, as I have not been there recently.
The Bill places a maximum limit of ninety-nine years on any lease. The actual length of the lease granted will be one of the matters dealt with in the competitive tender. As to the rent, the Government would be prepared, if necessary, to agree initially to a nominal rent so that the heavy capital cost might be recovered. Nevertheless, we shall


bear in mind that the operation of a garage at this key site may well prove lucrative. In that event, we shall, naturally, take steps to see that the Government participate in the profits.
No Government expenditure will be involved in the building and operation of the garage. The whole cost will fall on the developer. If Parliament approves the grant of the powers, it will be necessary to invite the developers to submit tenders on terms and conditions notified to them. The successful tenderer will have to prepare detailed construction plans and there is some statutory undertaker's apparatus in the subsoil which will have to be moved. We shall press forward with all stages of this work as fast as possible.
I cannot say when work on building the garage will begin, but it will be started while the present road works are continuing. Therefore, I think that this gives encouragement to the private motorist in the centre of London who will see that we have his interests at heart and are making a very determined and unconventional attempt to meet his requirements. In America, I saw a number of underground car parks, in Chicago and Los Angeles. I have written to those places for details of financial terms and conditions and the experience they have had. That information I intend to scrutinise very carefully when it arrives.

Mr. Albert Evans: Will the House have an opportunity of seeing the terms of the tenders and the suggested nominal rent and the later financial provisions which are to enable the State to take back something of the profit which accrues?

Mr. Marples: I do not know about the tenders, but any conditions I send out I am willing for the House to see. I am quite prepared to allow the House to know the basis, but, if a confidential tender is put in, it would be difficult to disclose details of one without disclosing details of another.

Mr. A. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman put in the Library the terms of the tender and the financial details?

Mr. Marples: I am quite prepared to do that with the terms and conditions under which I ask people to tender.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Can my right hon. Friend explain whether there will be one tender for the actual construction and another for the operation of the garage? I understood him to say that it is to be a tender for both purposes and not separate tenders.

Mr. Marples: The actual terms have not been decided on and, as I have said, I shall put the details in the Library so that the House will be fully informed. It may well be that we shall have people to construct and operate the garage. I think that would be more desirable than to get someone to construct it and someone else to run it. We do not want to have to deal with more than one developer or a consortium.

Mr. W. Baxter: Will the right hon. Gentleman have any control over the charges to be levied?

Mr. Marples: No. They will be exactly the same as in some of the other garages built in the centre of London. It will be the economic price and it will not be a dictated price. It will probably be similar to that charged at Selfridge's and it will have to bear some relation to the cost. But it must be a very fair deal from the Government's point of view, because ultimately, when the heavy capital cost has been recovered, this will be a key site and will be lucrative. It must be a fair division between the Government and private enterprise.
For a long time the motoring organisations have been pressing the Government to take action in the provision of off-street car parking. I think that it is the job of local authorities and private enterprise to provide that off-street car parking at economic prices, and it is the Government's job especially to help the local authority in acquiring suitable sites, because in many cases private enterprise itself cannot find the sites.
It is, therefore, with confidence that I commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that it will be given an unopposed Second Reading.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The Minister began with a long exposition of various matters, the undoubted relevance of which I found a little difficult to appreciate. I think that we all agree


with him that there is a need for more car-parking facilities in London; I cannot imagine anybody denying it. But what is he doing? He is giving away what belongs not to him but to the Crown and is managed by the Minister of Works, and he is giving it away on terms which remain singularly obscure. The part of his speech which I wanted to hear—it came at the very end—was very vague indeed; it related to the terms and conditions under which this provision was to be made.
The Nugent Report, Cmnd, 812, some time ago emphasised the need for these very facilities. This is no new discovery by the right hon. Gentleman or by any of the numerous committees which are supposed to be looking after London traffic. If London traffic could be managed by committees, I am sure that it would be all right now. In this respect it is rather like the Highlands.
The Nugent Report agrees that,
The obstruction of traffic by indiscriminately parked cars should be dealt with by parking meter schemes"—
to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—
strict enforcement of No-Waiting Regulations and the provision of multi-storey garages to meet the demand of the essential long-term parker".
He is a new man to me. He must be a relative of the hypothetical tenant about whom we are always hearing in rating cases. Apparently we have to consider "the essential long-term parker".
The plan has grown a lot. About a year ago, on 3rd February, 1960, there were some Questions about it. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) referred—it seems to be quite well known to everybody—to the delays in proceeding with underground car parks at Cavendish Square—I do not know what has happened there—and the north-east corner of Hyde Park.
The map indicates quite clearly not merely the north-east corner of Hyde Park, which I think is Speakers' Corner, but quite a large area around the whole side of Hyde Park—36 acres, of which six acres are to be occupied by the actual garage space. I do not know what would have happened if they had used 36 acres. I think that the risk about this garage is that it might prove

to be rather too large. It is certainly required, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has information as to the local requirements to justify this pretty extensive Measure, but that even those who are not traffic experts will agree that one very large car park underground is not quite as good as a number of smaller car parks spread about in different places.
What the Nugent Committee had in mind, and what I think was intended for some time, were multi-storey car parks. I will not say that multi-storey car parks are necessarily right, but it is interesting 'to notice that multi-storey car parks are being used in a great many provincial areas. Only the other day an exceedingly attractive photograph appeared in a newspaper of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport opening a multi-storey car park. This was at Bedford. By whom was it run? It was run by the Bedford municipality, and it was a very large car park indeed. I take it that the municipality, whatever it can do, is able to do as much underground as it does over-ground, and I was rather disappointed to hear that, although the right hon. Gentleman had had discussions with Westminster City Council, the Government are so intent on abolishing the L.C.C. that he did not even think it worthwhile to talk to the L.C.C. about the possibility of the L.C.C. doing the job.
I know of an even simpler solution than that. We are dealing with Crown property. It has been Crown property for a very long time. It is proposed to use it for what is claimed to be a public purpose. It is proposed to use it for the relief of London traffic congestion. For that purpose a great deal of public money is necessarily and rightly spent at present. For instance, roads are widened, traffic wardens are provided and the whole apparatus and responsibility of the public control of transport is applied at the public expense to meet what is, after all, a public need.
The first point which would have occurred to me, if I had had to approach it, would have been that this is Crown land which is to be used for a public purpose and that it ought to be run by some public body. I fail to see the need for handing it out to private enterprise,


unless it is purely ideological prejudice, as so often is the case on the Conservative benches. I fail to see why the right hon. Gentleman should commit himself for any other reasons than purely ideological prejudice to saying in this case that economic charges must be paid.
About a year ago the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), when talking about this subject, said,
the parking difficulties in London and our great cities will never be solved until some multi-storey garages are erected in the centres of those cities".
Goodness knows which costs most—a multi-storey garage on top of Hyde Park or an underground garage below it. I do not know, I doubt whether there is an immense difference, but I concede at once that the right hon. Gentleman has a long experience in these matters and great personal skill in them. I accept any comment which he makes on those lines.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: The hon. and learned Member is not seriously suggesting that we should put a multi-storey garage in the middle of our beautiful Hyde Park?

Mr. Mitchison: I am not as cracked as that. I was referring to a multi-storey garage because of what followed, and I am saying that I am not sure whether the capital cost would be very different. I was a little frightened by seeing the right hon. Gentleman express some doubt or dissent, and I thought that before I crossed swords with him on such a technical question I ought to mention expert knowledge. I come to what the hon. Member himself said, and I cannot think that there is much wrong with it:
Further, is my right hon. Friend aware that the economic cost of such garages works out at about 12s. 6d. per day per motor car and that on that basis they will never become popular."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 982.]
That is very stiff. As an example of charges at other places where people have to leave their cars, I remind the House that at London Airport the charge is 4s. a day. The charge at this garage may well be formidable, more than 12s. 6d. a day. The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman was that multi-storey garages should rank for grant, because

otherwise they would be too expensive. In this case there is to be no grant. It is to be let out to private enterprise. The charges are to be on an economic basis.
We heard a little further elucidation of that, because we were told that it was expected that the project would be very lucrative. If it is very lucrative, which is even fruitier than an economic basis, goodness knows what the charges will be. We are invited to arrange for building a garage which will take 1,000 or 1,100 cars—at 12s. 6d. a day, more than 12s. 6d. a day, or how much a day? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what the charges are expected to be. He was under a duty to the public to make some estimate of them. I was surprised that we did not hear a word about charges in his speech. That is what we are concerned with.
I do not know how well off the gentleman whom the right hon. Gentleman described as "the essential long-term parker" is, but I do not think that the E.L.P., as I shall call him, exists in such numbers and with so many large purses as to be able to pay the full cost of a project like this. If the right hon. Gentleman can justify the Bill at all, it must be on the basis that he is meeting a public need and causing to be carried out what is a public duty. In those terms, nothing but a somewhat barren ideology could tie him quite so tightly to forcing the man driven to an underground park by the pressure of traffic in London to pay, not merely the economic cost of his parking, but a charge which is anticipated will yield lucrative results to someone else.
In those circumstances, much the simplest thing to do would have been to let a public authority do the whole project. I am not certain that either the Westminster City Council or the London County Council is necessarily the right body. However, there are two right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. They both have offices. One of them manages Hyde Park and the other manages transport. Could not they manage to run a garage between them, instead of providing a lucrative proposition for somebody else, out of the needs of London traffic and the poor E.L.P., who will have to pay for it all?

Mr. Grant-Ferris: As it is so important to save money on all the different things on which we have to save money, would it not be better to let private enterprise have a good shot first?

Mr. Mitchison: I am not necessarily an E.L.P. I leave my car in the Temple. The hon. Gentleman's observation does not suggest that he appreciates the right way to look at a public duty. The Minister of Transport is supposed to keep the traffic moving. It is not as easy as it looks nowadays. He is doing all this as part of his public duty as the Minister of Transport. He cannot justify it in any other way. Why present some developer with a lucrative proposition at the expense of the poor E.L.P.? That chap is quite a character, and I do not see why all this money should be taken off him for this purpose.
That is my main criticism, but I want to follow it up a little further. This is a very odd Bill. When a Minister is to receive a lot of money, there is usually a Clause in the Bill saying what he is to do with it. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman will pocket it, but it is usual to make some provision for it. Provision is very carefully made in other cases. Not only will the right hon. Gentleman receive some rent, but if he had been a little less narrow-minded about this his Ministry or another public authority could have done quite well out of selling petrol. Apparently it is wrong for public bodies to sell petrol in connection with transport. They can make arrangements to provide underground parking space. They can even arrange for a lease on suitable terms, but on no account must they sell petrol. I have never understood why. It appeared in the 1960 Act, which provided that local authorities could do all sorts of things about parking, but in one obscure subsection it was provided that on no account must they sell petrol. Therefore, somebody else will make all the profits out of this attempt to meet the public need in London, certainly the profits resulting from the sale of petrol.

Mr. Norman Cole: Unless I have completely misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, he has contradicted himself at least once in the last ten minutes. At one stage he said that the E.L.P., as he put it, could not pay

12s. 6d. a day and he guessed that there would be a loss on the garage. The next moment he suggested that my right hon. Friend should take it on because there was a lucrative profit to be made out of it.

Mr. Mitchison: It is all quite consistent. I would never lightly say that I had been consistent, but in this instance I am perfectly consistent. It is not for me to say that the E.L.P. will get off with 12s. 6d. a day. That charge was based on the economic cost of something different. He may very well have to pay much more. Like the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), I am innocent in these matters. I wait to be told by the responsible Department which is seeking to meet a public need how much it is to charge the public for using the facilities it provides. I did not get the information from the Minister. I hope that we shall learn it before the day is over. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman now if he cares to tell us what the charge will be. He does not seem interested in doing that, but it is very much to the point.
It would have been very much better if either the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Works—or, as they are as closely associated as Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the two of them together—could have managed between them to run the garage for the public benefit and even to sell petrol. Ideology forbids a public body to sell petrol. I suppose that is the right hon. Gentleman's reason for it.
I hope that I am making myself clear. When the Minister is called upon to act for a public purpose and to meet a public need, it is wrong that he should take measures which seem likely to result in the public paying a great deal of money for the benefit, at any rate partly, of the gentleman referred to as "the developer", that is to say, the contractor. I wonder if Mr. Clore is in on this. He has a hotel round the corner. I should not like to ask any questions on this topic. They might embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. It would have been very much better if the Minister had undertaken the project himself.
This is a case in which the House should be told rather more than it sometimes is on Government contracts. We should know the rent and conditions.


The right hon. Gentleman had an uneasy conscience about this. He said that it would be lucrative. At one stage he said it would be very lucrative and that the Government would ensure that they got their share back out of it. We should especially like to know what those provisions are. This is a case in which the Government might reasonably say to the contractor, "We shall have the profits once you have made a reasonable return on a percentage basis on whatever you spend on doing the job for us". I am assuming for the purpose of my argument that we shall be led—I was about to say "up the garden path", but instead I will say into this misty cavern by the route which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested and that any form of public ownership is out of the question and any form of public management only doubtfully in it.
We shall not divide against the Bill. This is a real public need. Our objections to it are very much more the financial ones in relation to the way in which it is to be done and in relation to the result of the method on those who use the space. If the Government prune £50 million to £100 million off the National Health Service, we shall not let them off lightly when there is a question between them and some developer about who is to get the results of this very lucrative enterprise. Those results, if they are to be there at all, should go to the public, since what the Minister is doing is a public duty. This is very much a case where the activities of the developer or the contractor, or whatever we call him, should be watched very closely indeed in the public interest.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is worried about how the deal should be done. I profess that my anxiety is less than his but, it starts a little earlier in the story, I am worried about the deed that is to be done.
The Bill, which my right hon. Friend has outlined, offers an exciting and imaginative project. It is intended, as my right hon. Friend said, as an earnest of the Government's intention to deal with the off-street parking problem in Central London, and no one would question the need to do that. It is obviously

a Measure that is a source of triumph to the Government. We know that, because it had an honourable but surprising place in the Gracious Speech, and I am fortified by knowing that this is a subject about which my right hon. Friend knows a great deal. Technically he knows what he is about. I acknowledge that before I go on to strike perhaps a more captious note. In the circumstances, it seems rather unkind, as well as vain, to strike any kind of note at all, except a favourable one, but I must admit that there are aspects of this Measure which leave me less than enraptured. Perhaps that is because I have no engineering blood in my veins. Perhaps it is because, like the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, I either do not run a car in London or, if I do, I have the yard outside in which to park. This is an interest which every hon. Member must declare.
At the risk involved for all who stand between the motorist and what he wants, I want to examine one or two points in the Bill rather critically. First, may I say a word, not on behalf of the great majority of car packers, but on behalf of the minority of park lovers. That they are places of value in London hardly needs emphasis, particularly the trio formed by Hyde Park, Green Park and St. James's Park, which are acknowledged to be without peer in Europe. It behoves all of us to watch very carefully any act of anyone in association with the parks. Nothing which detracts from their value or beauty, even temporarily, is to be lightly regarded.
My right hon. Friend has spoken of the minimum of disturbance. That remark implies that there will be some disturbance. He has spoken of ventilation shafts, which I take it will be permanent, of the emergency exit, which we hope will be permanent, and of the loss of fifteen trees. This is not the first, and it will not be the last, demand made upon Hyde Park. It is not the first, as the earthworks at Hyde Park Corner now make very clear.
Here it is perhaps apt to quote something that the then Minister of Transport said in the House three years ago, on 11th December, 1957, on the Park Lane Improvement Bill:
Turning to the general amenities, I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the


Minister of Works, who has been most helpful in all this, and who himself hopes, I think, that his new Hyde Park will be rather more private and cut off from traffic, and of rather greater amenity than the present one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 1291.]
The Minister of Works in question was about to lose four acres and sixty trees, and he thought that he would still have a greater amenity than the present one. It is clear, and my right hon. Friend has confirmed this, that we are now in for a really unbroken chain of operations. The Park Lane scheme, which we all commend for what it will be, has been running for some time, and I think will run on for quite a bit. One hears that this scheme is to be linked to it so there will be more or less an unbroken course of operations. I should like to hear before the end of the debate how long this project is likely to take. In Hyde Park it seems always jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but it is very seldom that we get a clear view of today. The lines of Housman come into my mind:
And since to look at things in bloom
Fifty springs are little room …
I wonder how soon it will be before we are able to see spring in Hyde Park without all the earthworks in between.
This proposal cannot be considered entirely in isolation. It is not only the future prospects of this park which disquiet me. Presumably this design is an exemplar of what is possible elsewhere, and I think one has a right to wonder whether, if it is within the rules of order to inquire, what may be the sequel to be expected from other local authorities. Is this cut and cover idea for open spaces to be regarded as an example which other local authorities should follow?
I have no doubt that, particularly under the eye of my right hon. Friend, this scheme at Hyde Park will be most skilfully done and the damage kept to a minimum. It will not be a kind of opencast mining operation. But if other local authorities get bitten by this idea, the Minister of Transport will not always be in a position to stand over them. What will be the consequences in other places to trees, open spaces, and amenities? That is something which we ought to consider before we let this Bill go.
I feel also that it is not out of place to speak about our endeavours to make

any serious scientific approach to the traffic problems of London. My right hon. Friend may eventually shout me down about this, but I suggest that in terms of scientific research we know less about the traffic in London than we know about bird migration, and that is supported by authorities, whom I have heard quite lately, and one or two of whom, I am glad to say, advised my right hon. Friend. We are still far behind other places which have as many or more cars in their streets. Much more close research and expensive research has to be done if we are really to discover which car is going in which direction, why the owner is in the car, why he must be there and where he is going to finish up. That must be done before we can decide where our parking places, among other things, are sited.
I am suspicious of an operation like this which is being based on a less than an adequate survey of the general picture. Presumably—my right hon. Friend added a word of assurance here—we know all about flows of traffic likely to move from other parts of London towards this part and out of it. I accept that this flow to and from this haven will be all that it should be.
But palpably this plan is based not so much on research as on the convenience of Hyde Park being where it is and a place where one can cut and cover without massacring our arboriculture. We have hitherto never touched more than the fringe of this problem of the car and its future in the centre of our big cities. The question to me is, as Humpty Dumpty said, "Who is to be the Master?". That is all. The longer the question is undecided, the more difficult the answer will be. I have a feeling that the solution is to be found by simple economics. What is the economic price which ought to be charged for parking in the centre of a big city all day? There is a formula to be found here, but I do not think it will be found in time to accompany this Hyde Park affair. What charges should be imposed to strike a right balance? That is to say, what charges will give the man who has good reason to bring his car into London what he needs, but will discourage the man who ought to be discouraged because his presence in his car is not really essential? There is an economic answer, but I do


not think it is altogether on the lines of what the Government are trying to do here.
I do not know as much about this as I should, but I think there is a great deal more to be done. Before we part with a large slice of Hyde Park—I think my right hon. Friend mentioned a total of 36 acres and 6 acres underground—we are entitled to hear about such work on a wider scale, and not only in London but elsewhere. Civil engineering on this scale demands commensurate traffic engineering. The two things ought to go together. A grand project of this kind is not really a substitute for deep constructive thought on a traffic engineering problem.
I am sorry to be unduly captious about this. I confess a deep affection for London parks, and I think that one is entitled to have certain reservations before accepting a demand which, as day follows night, will lead to other demands on the parks. Each demand will be essential in the interests of progress, as is the project which my right hon. Friend has in mind, and each demand will be justified. Also each demand will diminish those parks just a little more. Since I think this Bill is the forerunner of other Measures of this kind, and as such it ought to be judged, I want to be a little more sure of the direction in which we are moving.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I came into the Chamber full of curiosity about what the Minister would say about the Bill, but, unlike my hon. and learned Friend who got some answer, I unfortunately have had none as yet. I hope that we shall have more information before my hon. and learned Friend's very optimistic forecast that we shall not divide on this Bill is realised.
The Bill as drafted is a masterpiece of concealment and evasion. The particular collector's piece is the phrase:
The Minister of Transport shall not be required to prevent …
The Bill is as careful as it could be to avoid any commitment as to what sort of engineering operations are going to take place once this hole has been dug. I should have thought that we were en-

titled to a fairly expansive account of the discussions which took place on the architectural and engineering possibilities. After all, this is a very significant and important step. As the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) pointed out, it is a matter of great concern.
There is a story that one of the earlier Georges asked one of his Ministers "What is Hyde Park worth?" and the answer was "Your Crown, Sir." I wondered, when the Minister was starting his speech and giving us the keynote of his estimate of the situation, whether we had been deprived of the estimable monarch or whether he had been sleeping, like Barbarossa, and whether the Minister had to explain, after all these years, why we now wanted to use Hyde Park; because, as though he were talking to somebody who was old and deaf, and with a desire to make clear what had been happening in the world, he gave us this wonderful estimate which we shall relish in HANSARD tomorrow when we read it over again, when he said that one of the outstanding features of our age is the increase in traffic.
Perhaps, out of a desire not to upset the old gentleman, the Minister did not refer to any other outstanding features of our age or any other problems which might have been worrying people. [An HON. MEMBER: "It would have been out of order."] It would not have been out of order to explain to the owner of Hyde Park some of the problems which have been giving us such concern, and I am surprised that the Minister should have been so willing to avoid what would have been in order when discussing the Second Reading of a Bill whose purpose is to carve up Hyde Park.
Surely we are entitled to ask what discussions have been taking place on certain aspects of the matter, and particularly on the aspect to which I am now about to come. I do not think there is a capital city in the world where any scheme for underground parking will not have been associated with the problem of Civil Defence and of deep shelters. I can understand why that has not been mentioned in the Bill, but I cannot understand why there has been no reference to it in the Minister's speech, because it will surely be in the mind of anyone who has been concerned with Civil Defence.
I am certain that it has been in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman himself, because we know of his brilliant personal career in connection with civil engineering and in moving earth before he came into the House. One would go about the country and see whole areas covered with machinery bearing his name. He must have said to himself, "If I were doing this how would I set about it?" although it is true that in the intervening years he has become an expert at dozing other kinds of bull.
He must have a sense of urgency and reality when he thinks about this project. Surely his train of thought must have led him to the question of deep shelters. He must have thought of something on the lines mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashford, and considered the problems of deep excavation. If this sort of architectural engineering is going to spread, I hope that we shall not make the same sort of mistakes as were made in buildings on the surface and cover whole areas with shallow constructions which make it impossible or very expensive to excavate deeper later on.
The Minister, as a Cabinet Minister, must constantly have had before him the papers on Civil Defence, some reference to which appears in the appropriate documents from time to time. In the last two White Papers on Defence there has been a token reference to Civil Defence.
No new development has been announced. In neither of those White Papers, nor in the two Reports of the Ministry of Health, which also contained references to Civil Defence, has there been any reference whatever to deep shelters. There have been references to other kinds of Civil Defence activities, but none whatever to the provision of deep shelters.
If it is true that the Government have abandoned all thought of providing deep shelters for the inhabitants of London, then the Minister ought to say so. This underground car park will be an attraction, in case of danger, to the inhabitants of my constituency and of the constituency of Mr. Speaker, and there ought to be some indication of its usefulness in such circumstances.
Is it not rather cruel to allow recruitment for Civil Defence in relation to the movement of casualties to the primary treatment centres, without there being any provision for shelter and protection of the vehicles required for this purpose? Would it not have been prudent at least to consider that in relation to this scheme?
A lot of people enrol each year in the Civil Defence and about the same number leave it in despair and frustration. But they all start with the hope that they will learn something which will enable them to be helpful. They will note with sorrow that there is no provision for or reference in the Bill to the sheltering of their transport, and the Minister might have dealt with that point today.
The right hon. Gentleman might have gives us a discursive, quick glimpse at the history of deep shelters and deep excavated buildings in other countries at the present time. The Chief Civil Defence Officer for the County of Middlesex was given a gold medal, not by this Government but by the Government of Denmark, for the great assistance he gave in the preparation of civil defence in that country.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot connect that with the Bill at present before the House.

Mr. Parkin: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I could, if you would only let me try.
I think that anyone concerned with digging a hole in the Queen's back garden would have sent for such an expert and said, "Can you give us any useful advice such as you gave the Danes? Can we develop a dual purpose construction here, and what do you know about it?" We know that the Swedes have been extraordinarily lucky because they have been able to tunnel into rock. Some countries are more optimistic than others about deep shelters, but this may be because they have no rocket bases.
This really is the nub of my inquiry. I think that we ought to be told why, like the dog in Sherlock Holmes' story, the right hon. Gentleman did not bark. That is the mystery about his speech. It is inconceivable that this aspect of the problem was not even considered by the Cabinet and by the Minister personally.


We ought to know to what conclusions they came and whether they were technical. We ought to know whether they came to the conclusion, reached long ago by the Commonwealth Relations Minister, that there was no possibility of defending the civil population, and more recently by the noble Lord, who, speaking on the subject of Polaris, said that it was disgraceful to pretend that the danger to Glasgow was in any way increased by the presence of Polaris because everyone knew that anyone within 100 miles of Glasgow would be burnt to a cinder immediately an H-bomb was dropped.
These opinions on the part of the Government might justify thorn in saying. "We are not going to waste money on things like that. Let us look at the fact that 7 per cent. of Londoners travel by car and only 93 per cent. by public transport. Let us put the priority where it lies." Or, alternatively, there might be another and more generous interpretation of the Government's mentality. It may be—and I suspect that this is the truth—that they know that there is, in fact, no likelihood of aggression against this country.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: On a point of order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but there are a number of hon. Members who would like to discuss the Bill if they could have your help, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in doing so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Paddington. North (Mr. Parkin) has been causing me some concern for some time. I hope that he will relate his remarks more closely to the subject of the Bill.

Mr. Parkin: I am sorry to cause you concern, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My great anxiety is to cause concern to the Minister about problems which seem connected with this proposal to dig a hole in Hyde Park. We ought to hear from the right hon. Gentleman about these matters before we decide how to vote on the Bill and we ought to be told why it is that these other considerations have not been dealt with.
I was about to conclude that it may well be that there is a simple explanation—that the Government do not believe that there is, in fact, any military

danger to this country and that it does not matter whatsoever. As I say, I was about to conclude on that note, and I will resist the temptation, which the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) has presented to me, to discuss the effect on the coloured peoples for whom he shows a great interest when they came to live in this country, and whose feelings are echoed in other parts of the world.
I hope that we shall get an honest, straightforward statement from the Minister of the discussion of the conclusions which must have been reached on this problem before the Bill is given a Second Reading.

5.36 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: This aspect of the Bill has, I suggest, been sufficiently dealt with in the speech to which we have just listened by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) and, therefore. I will not now add any further observations on that subject.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the Bill. I must also at once declare a close personal interest in that I live on the corner of Upper Brook Street and Park Lane, which is extremely close to where this garage is going to be dug out. I wish, therefore, like the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), to express disappointment at the fact that the Minister has not told us a little more about the financial implications involved.
There is the case of the E.L.Ps. of whom I am one, living in that area, and, as an E.L.P., I should naturally like to be in a position to garage my car as cheaply as I possibly can. On the other hand, I think that as Members of Parliament we also have a responsibility concerning the expenditure of taxpayers' money. At this juncture a great deal of taxpayers' money is being expended in various ways, and I should not like to see such money spent on either digging this hole or in operating costs.
Surely there are strong grounds here for following the custom of years gone by of interesting such bodies as water boards or gas undertakings—before nationalisation, of course—whereby public money could be obtained by


subscription. Some kind of public body could be set up to operate the project in conjunction with other underground places which may be obtained elsewhere, whether in St. James's Park, Regent's Park or in other squares. Possibly the revenue from parking meters could be used in this way. I should have thought that there could have been some means of starting up a public board with the public subscribing money at a fixed rate of interest, together, perhaps, with some participating interest laid down by Statute and a limiting of the amount of money to be charged.
If something of that kind could be done, and there are various ways of doing it about which the Minister is no doubt aware, it would meet some of the objections which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering has voiced and which I, and I imagine hon. Members on both sides of the House, also have. Something is being provided which is publicly needed, but at the same time it ought to be supplied at as reasonable a price as possible.

Mr. Mellish: We had better get this matter cleared up for the rest of the debate. The Minister can intervene to correct me if necessary, but, as I understand it, no public money will be provided. The work will be thrown out to tender—and I hope that the London County Council as well as private enterprise will be allowed to tender—and the contractors will develop the site. They will dig the hole and then it may be that the developer will become the operator. As the Minister said, the operational side will probably be very lucrative. If that is the case, should not the first priority be given to the Minister of Works? If, at the end of the day, the operation of this car park is going to be lucrative, he himself should undertake the task.

Sir W. Wakefield: Like the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I should like a good deal more financial information on this point. I should also like to know what the prospects are. We hear that they may be very lucrative. I am not sure what will be the cost of digging the hole, but the cost of operation must be fairly well known. At the present time there is an urgent need for further long-term parking facilities in Central London.
The Minister explained the means that he was taking to ensure a quick and easy flow of traffic from the country into Central London. That is essential, but it is no use providing that unless, when the motorist gets into Central London and wants to leave his car for a longer period than one or two hours, a place is available for him to leave it. This garage will provide for that need, if the person can afford the price charged. If the price is too high many motorists will be deterred from coming into London in their own cars. Instead they will use public transport. It may be that the price factor is intended to be used as a means of restricting the flow of traffic into Central London.
Be that as it may, in addition to long-term parking Deeds for people coming in from the outside to Central London there is an urgent need in my constituency and Mr. Speaker's constituency for long-term parking facilities for residents. Only yesterday I received a letter from a doctor which says:
I live in a flat at 59, Weymouth Street, W.1 and practice at 9, Cavendish Square, W.1. I am the owner of a Rover … which I use partly as a private car and partly in the conduct of that part of my practice which refers to oral surgery involving visits to houses, nursing homes and hospitals. There is no garage vacant, public or private, near either address.
What is that doctor and other similar people—and there are many of them—to do? They have to live and work in Central London, and they must have suitable parking facilities.
The Bill will provide much-needed facilities in the west end of my constituency, but in other parts of my constituency there will still be urgent need, and I want to know if the Minister has any further proposals, in conjunction with the local authority, to extend underground car parking, for example, in Regents Park. I do not know to what extent the Crown Commissioners are in communication with my right hon. Friend in this matter, but there is large-scale development in Park Crescent, close to the medical area of Harley Street, which could provide suitable off-street parking facilities and which are at present urgently needed.
That comes within the jurisdiction of the Crown Commissioners. I do not know whether any enabling Bill is required to provide off-street parking there. If it is,


I would have hoped that provision could be included in the Bill in respect of that land, which is now available and is very suitable for the provision of parking facilities. Alternatively, provision could be made in respect of any other part of Regent's Park, which consists of a large expanse of land on which a hole could be dug out without interfering with the amenities.
I would like to emphasise the point which has been made by my hon. Friend about the preservation of amenities. He referred to the nibbling away of a bit here and a bit there. It is extremely important that amenities should be preserved, and it is good to know that the scheme proposed in the Bill appears fully to preserve them. I hope that where the ventilating shafts protrude from the ground there will be proper screening with trees and bushes. That can easily be done. I hope that this may be an example of the possibility of valuable and practical commercial development taking place with, at the same time, an adequate screening of protrusions by proper planning.
Unless these and other long-term parking facilities are made available, I should like my hon. Friend to state what steps are being taken to provide temporary facilities such as were provided over Christmas. These were widely used.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot connect that point with the Bill.

Sir W. Wakefield: As I understand it, the Bill is an enabling Bill to provide long-term parking facilities for Central London, and particularly for the West End. The Minister has pointed out the need for this, and has also said that extra provision will be made for speeding up the traffic flow. I thought it was relevant to argue that, while this hole is being dug in the park, temporary facilities should be made available to help the motorist. The public want to know what facilities they will have, in view of the spread of the parking meter. The parking meter schemes and the revenue from them are all tied up with the question of off-street parking, whether in Hyde Park or in the other buildings which we have heard will be erected in Westminster. After very great difficulties and many delays, and after the exercise

of compulsory purchase powers, two sires have been acquired in my constituency, but they will not be ready for some years because of legal complications which are still to be sorted out.
Because of all these difficulties, and the shortage of adequate off-street parking facilities, I welcome the Bill. At the same time, I am disappointed that it contains no provision for further facilities in other parks and squares, which would enable more rapid progress to be made in our aim to satisfy the needs of the long-term parker. I hope that before the Bill goes through further provisions will be introduced to provide much needed underground parking. I would earnestly ask my right hon. Friend to be a little more forthcoming and tell us more about the financial proposals for This development.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: If we are to have this scheme at all, the idea of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) that we should have it on the basis of gas-and-water Socialism is not unattractive. Nevertheless, I still feel that, as the Westminster City Council seems to be reluctant to take the initiative, the Minister ought properly to approach the London County Council and see whether it will behave in a more public-spirited fashion. If he is unable to take that attitude, I hope that he will explain rather more fully why the opportunity has not been given to the London County Council.
My purpose, however, is to record my misgivings about the scheme as a whole. In the first place, I feel that Hyde Park should be the very last resort and, since we have done so little in other parts of London, we are not really justified in embarking on a parking scheme in Hyde Park. The Minister's Working Party which reported in 1956 said that off-street parking was needed for 20,000 vehicles. Since then, there have been estimates that the need is really for space for 30,000 vehicles, and I suspect that even that would be inadequate.
I saw recently a report of what the Commissioner of Transit and Traffic in Baltimore told us when he visited this country about fifteen months ago. He reported that in Baltimore, which has a


population of 1 million, there are off-street parking spaces for 25,000 cars. He explained that, subject to certain safeguards, 85 per cent. of the cost of the site and the building of an approved parking structure is advanced, to be repaid over twenty years, interest being at 3½ per cent., much lower than the prevailing market rate, and under that system, twenty-six parking garages had been built by that date.
It was not quite clear from what the Minister said how many off-street parking spaces have so far been provided or are in view. It sounded as if the total figure was about 7,000. I hope that he will be able to tell us in more detail later exactly how many have been provided, when the remainder will be provided, and what is the Government's ultimate target for off-street parking spaces. Let us remember that, while the recommendation for 20,000 spaces was made no less than five years ago, we have gone on allowing the erection in London and in the West End of buildings with no off-street parking spaces in them. I should have thought that, before we embarked upon a scheme of this kind, we ought at least to ensure that wherever private enterprise develops a site there is adequate parking space provision.
My second objection is this. I believe that this underground garage will be in the wrong place. I welcome what the Minister said about the success of the Park Lane Improvement Scheme. I agree entirely with what he said. There is no doubt that it has effected a very substantial improvement in the flow of traffic. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it is a pity that we should now begin to interfere with the flow of traffic by having exits and entrances for the underground garage debouching, as it were, on the improved carriageways.
There is the other objection that, having speeded up traffic in the area, we now propose to attract more traffic into it. It would have been much wiser, if we were to have an underground garage of this kind, to site it, perhaps, under Portman Square or under one of the squares in Paddington instead of bringing additional cars into the area where so substantial an improvement has been brought about.
But my main objection to the scheme is the one which the hon. Member for

Ashford (Mr. Deedes) advanced, namely, the damage to amenity. It is difficult to judge this, and I wish that the Minister had been able to present a White Paper to the House, with, perhaps, a model upstairs, from which we could really form a conclusion about the effect on amenity. After all, we do not know what will be the depth below ground level of the roof of the garage. We do not know what will be the difference in the water level in the area, and we do not really know what will be the long-term effect on the trees. I was interested to hear the Minister say that only fifteen trees would be affected. I have counted the trees shown in the designated area on the map and they total 126. I should like the Minister to explain how he arrives at his figure of fifteen.
When the Working Party on Car Parking in the Inner Area of London reported in 1953, it made two comments which I should like to read to the House. In paragraph 62, it said:
From our investigations into the physical process of constructing an underground car park it is quite clear that excavating from ground level would be necessary and that no process of tunnelling or excavation without disturbing the surface of the ground would be practicable.
I take it that that is the method to be adopted in this case. The Report goes on to say that
The surface disturbed temporarily in this way would be somewhat larger than the area of the finished structure.
A little later it is said:
It must be remembered that trees are living organisms which grow to maturity and eventually die, and to replace them when old merely forestalls by a few years an act which is inevitable if there are to be trees in the future. In many cases we have found that garages could be provided with the replacement of only a few trees in the centre and the retention of the greater part of those on the fringe.
It is clear that the Working Party, when considering the provision of underground car parks in London squares, was a little disturbed about the effect on the trees and, from my reading of its Report, I take it that the Working Party envisaged a more serious interference than the Minister himself seems to anticipate. I hope, therefore, that he will tell us what will be the effect upon the other 111 trees which he thinks will not be adversely affected.
Like the hon. Member for Ashford, I am a little apprehensive about the affects of the stewardship of the Minister of Works. As the hon. Member said, we recall the Park Lane Improvement Scheme, a scheme upon which many of us worked hard at the time and which we sought to improve. I cannot help feeling that in that case trees which might have been saved have been destroyed. I hope that we shall not follow that example in the case of the underground garage at Marble Arch.
Like hon. Members opposite, I am growing tired of this gradual destruction of amenity. There is always a compelling need which makes it obligatory upon us to make a concession of this kind. I remember our discussions about Winfrith Heath. We were told that that would probably be the only case of its kind. Now, of course, we have the construction of another establishment at Dungeness. When we agreed to the Park Lane Improvement Scheme, we were given the impression that that would be the last demand to be made. Now, we have this proposal before us.
We are gradually allowing the amenities of the country to be eroded in the most regrettable way. I hope that this will be the last demand and that, if we agree to this proposal today, the Government will not come along and suggest that there should be further encroachments upon the Royal Parks. I warn the Government that many of us will fight a proposal to have similar undertakings in Regent's Park, St. James's Park or any other of the Royal Parks. We shall watch suggestions of this kind with growing suspicion and submit them to relentless scrutiny.
I should be more readily prepared to welcome the Minister's proposal if I felt that it would make a real contribution towards solving London's traffic problems, but I believe that its effect on amenity and its confirmation of the principle that we can go on interfering with the Royal Parks is not warranted because of the smallness of the provision which is being made, the smallness of the contribution to the solution of London's traffic problems.
If I were convinced that this was part of a really radical scheme for solving London's traffic problems, my attitude would be different. If, for example,

I thought that the Minister had proposals for, perhaps, banning private cars from the middle of London and for developing London's transport system, possibly with minibuses operating between the main bus routes, I should be more prepared to give the Government the Bill without arguing against it in the way that I have. Until we have more radical, more positive and more far-sighted and far-reaching proposals than we have had from the Government, many of us will view the Bill with regret and will let it go through only in spite of our strong suspicion that we are wrong to give it a Second Reading.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I would never accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) of being captious. Nor do I accuse the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) of being captious on this occasion, because I well understand the point about amenities. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I am a great lover of the London parks. That is certainly a point about the Bill which we cannot possibly disregard. Nevertheless, I have been surprised at the lack of enthusiasm so far on both sides of the House for this Bill. It seems to me that it only does what many of us on both sides, including my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and myself, have been urging in Questions on the Minister for years.
The hon. Member for Rossendale said that the development should not take place in Hyde Park and that we should look elsewhere. But the whole point is that Hyde Park is central and is in an area where motorists most require parking space. Despite the amenity point, I very much welcome the Bill, which is, I am sure, really in line with what most of us, at any rate, want, namely, to get stationary cars off the street and into central and convenient car parks.
As the areas covered by parking meters and the number of traffic wardens increase, so difficulties for the motorists increase. I have found this to my pecuniary cost. I have recently been fined on two occasions! I do not complain about that because it was quite right that I should be fined, but it is the object of using a car to be able to stop


somewhere occasionally. It is becoming very difficult at certain times of day to stop anywhere at all in certain areas. The Hyde Park scheme will at least be a real assistance to the motorist. It will provide a central car park for the all-day parker. He is the person who clutters up the streets, impedes the movement of traffic and prevents the short-term parker finding any parking space whatever. He is the man who is using the Queen's highway as a free garage. He has done so for long enough, and he must now be prepared to pay for the parking space which up to now he has had free of charge.
The Bill does not indicate—perhaps it was impossible for my right hon. Friend to do so at this stage—the amount which the all-day parker will have to pay. I am told that in parts of New York the parking fee is as high as £1 a day. I imagine that even in London the motorist may have to pay perhaps 10s. a day for off-street parking.
Then there is the time factor. The time factor is rather important. My right hon. Friend gave no indication of how soon the Hyde Park underground garage will come into operation. I know that it would be difficult for him to estimate that, but, in the absence of an estimate, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone was justified in pressing the Minister to give the motorist some practical assistance in the meantime. The temporary car parks in the centre of London at Christmas time were of great assistance. But, as I pointed out by pure chance in a Question this afternoon, the problem is not merely a seasonal one. It is a continuing and increasing problem. I can see no reason why central car parks, like the Mall, Constitution Hill and Horse Guards Parade, should not be utilised until more permanent parking areas such as those envisaged in the Bill can be used.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works may object to this. He may say that we have to take account of ceremonial occasions such as Trooping the Colour and Royal visits. I can understand this, but surely it would be far preferable to close these car parks on such occasions than never to open them at all except during the Christmas shopping rush. I was glad to hear my right hon.

Friend say earlier this afternoon that he was conducting negotiations on this matter. If he is negotiating on my side, so to speak, with the Minister of Works, I wish him good fortune. To the Minister of Works I would simply say that he has been very co-operative and imaginative in allowing this Hyde Park scheme. I should just like him to be a little more imaginative and a little more cooperative and to allow us the use of these Pink Zone central car parks until the Hyde Park scheme can be brought into operation.
There is one other matter on which I think the Minister of Transport should insist. Developers of large new blocks of offices and flats should be made to provide off-street parking as an integral part of their developments. If my right hon. Friend has not the power to insist on this, then he should come to the House and ask for it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that point.

Mr. Fisher: I take your point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. But the debate has gone very wide. Even my right hon. Friend's speech, which I do not think you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, had the advantage of hearing, went extremely wide and covered the sort of point to which I am referring.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The fact that the debate has gone wide is no reason why it should go wider.

Mr. Fisher: I was about to submit that, when one compares the line which I am taking with that taken by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), who throughout his speech spoke about Civil Defence, I did not think that I was going unduly wide. Nevertheless, I must, as always, bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will not pursue the point, except to say that, if my right hon. Friend needs those powers, he has only to come to Parliament and I am sure that we shall give them to him as readily and as quickly as I hope we shall give him this Bill today.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I share the misgivings of hon. Members who view the Bill with a certain amount of


suspicion. The Government have not made up their mind on one fundamental point, namely, do we or do we not want more private cars in Central London? Without going into tedious detail, I can recall many occasions on which I have suggested to the Minister of Transport that the time has come to restrict the number of private cars coming into Central London. When I first made the suggestion there was a sort of horror-stricken gasp from the Minister at the idea that we should tamper with the sacred liberty of the individual.
London was not constructed with the idea of coping with today's volume of traffic. It is beyond our financial means to reconstruct Central London to cope with the growing volume of motor traffic in the West End and the City. Therefore, what I suggest that we must do is this, and this is a thought which is beginning to enter the mind of the Minister. We must, as politely as possible, deter private motorists from bringing their cars into Central London. The Bill will reverse that process. It will make it easier for a certain number of motorists who do not really require to bring their cars into Central London to do just that and to deposit them in the car park in Hyde Park.
To that extent, it is bound to increase traffic congestion. If the idea of the Bill is to make provision for the all-day parker, there will be a terrific jam at Marble Arch between, say, eight and ten o'clock each morning, with cars wanting to get into the underground garage, and another tremendous traffic jam between say, half-past four and half-past six every evening, when the cars want to come out.
Therefore, what we must decide is to whom the priority should be given. In my submission, it must be given to those people who have to use public transport to get to and from their work. They are the people who should get first consideration. If it takes longer for people working in the West End or in the City to get to and from their work, any proposition which adds to their working day—which is what it boils down to—or any suggestion that will lengthen the working day of people who have to rely upon public transport, should be resisted or, at least, seriously questioned.
One of these days, the Minister will have to come to the House and say, "We have now reached the limit. There is no possibility of providing any more parking facilities for private car owners who want to come up to the West End or the City either for pleasure or to go to work." We shall have to tell these private motor car owners coming from the west, for example, that they must leave their cars at, say, Ealing Broadway, use facilities provided in that area, and make the rest of their journey by Underground. Those coming from the south would have to be told to stop at Morden and come the rest of the way by Underground, and similarly with people approaching London from the east and from the north.
We must declare the central part of London what I might call a private-car-free zone so as to enable London Transport to do the job for which it is intended, namely, to enable people to get to and from their work with reasonable comfort and without undue delays. It is quite selfish and unreasonable to place in front of the convenience of the mass of the travelling public who have to rely on public transport the convenience of a comparatively small number of private car owners. It is because the Bill reverses what ought to be the general approach of the Ministry of Transport to this important problem that I share the profound misgivings of hon. Members, on both sides, about the Bill.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) attack the Bill, because so often at Question Time I have heard him press upon the Minister the need for more parking space in London. The hon. Member is the last person who should attack the Bill. Time is getting on, however, and I wish to say only a few words. First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on persuading his colleagues in the Government to take this bold step at this time. It is not a moment too soon.
I happen to live in a little cul-de-sac at the back of Chelsea Barracks. Four years ago, there were only four all-day parkers in that cul-de-sac, so much so that when the troops were parading out of Chelsea Barracks with their bands, the police could move the vehicles out of the


way. When I counted the other day, however, there were fifty-six all-day parkers. The reason is that people have been forced out of the centre of London by the parking meters and the stricter enforcement of the law and they are now disporting themselves all round the fringes of the Pink Zone.
I do not think that any further research into this matter is needed. There is undoubtedly a pressing need in the centre of London for these provisions. I am delighted to see from the map that the scheme will not spoil the amenities of Hyde Park. We must not do that. The work for the underground car park should be done, if possible, during the winter months. I believe that it could be done in a few months. We ought not to upset the lovers and all the others who enjoy Hyde Park in the summer.
I am delighted to see that the petrol pumps will be placed underground, or, at least, out of sight down the slope near the entrance. If there is any doubt about them protruding above ground, an architect or the R.I.B.A. should be called in to consider how to hide them. Obviously, there must be a long lease for a project such as this, which will be developed by a development company.
With the assistance of one or two people outside this House, I have tried to estimate how the costs of this operation will work out. As far as I can understand, it is likely that the capital construction cost will be about £1,000 a car. Then, there will be the running costs, including attendants. The developers, therefore, must recover something like £200 a car per annum, which is £4 a week or about 10s. a day. On an hourly basis, I imagine that the charge would be about 2s. or 2s. 6d. for every two hours. That sounds expensive, but it would be a tremendous facility to people who go to a meeting in, say, the centre of London and want to leave their car for, perhaps, four hours, but who at present are precluded from doing so. For a doctor who has to attend a case it would be a great facility.
The underground car park will not be filled with what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) called the E.L.P., the all-day-long parker. There are so many initials in this debate that I wondered whether

E.L.P. really stood for "Elderly Labour Party". In response to the appeal by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) on behalf of the civil defence workers, I could not help feeling that the garage would be of more use, not to civil defence, but to another C.D., the Corps Diplomatique.
My right hon. Friend should decide to make the terms and conditions of letting the garage free in the sense that the operator should be able to make what arrangements he can for operating inside the garage. For instance, not only should the casual public be accommodated. but there should be provision for contract parking—that is, spaces let to places like hotels in the neighbourhood. I imagine that the "bread and butter" overheads of a proposition like this might well be assisted by Grosvenor House and the Cumberland Hotel taking half a dozen or a dozen spaces all the year round which they could let out to their own clients or managers. Half the problem in London is not the casual parker who comes for the day, but the man who brings his car to business because during some part of the day he has to use it to go from one place to another. It would be a great facility for firms or places like Grosvenor House to be able to enter into a contract with the developer of a garage like this for taking up, say, half a dozen places.
Despite what has been said by some hon. Members, I hope that this garage will be a forerunner of other convenient schemes in London. I envisage that under Green Park it would be perfectly simple to have another underground garage for 500 cars.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What about under New Palace Yard?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Yes, even under New Palace Yard. In the case of Green Park, it would be simple to have another garage for 500 cars. The entrance could be from Arlington Street, under Arlington House, where there is already a garage, and under the footpath, without disturbance to amenities by the cutting down of trees. Similarly, I am told that no fewer than 2,500 cars could be parked under Horse Guards Parade without disturbing a tree or anybody. It could be done slowly, one-fifth of the parade ground at a time, until it was completed.

Mr. Lipton: What about the forecourt at Buckingham Palace?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am not making any further suggestions.
One other interesting fact is revealed by this debate, and that is that we are approaching the time when underground car parking will be economic. This is slightly contrary to what I said a year ago. but I understand that now the price of land in London is over £10 a sq. ft. and in many places in London even above that. Where land is over £10 per sq. ft. it is even more economical to have an underground car park than it is to have an overground car park. The situation in the last year or two has altered in that respect.
I commend the Bill to the House, and I believe that this is an example which could be followed without destruction of amenities in one or two other places.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) was bold enough to give some estimates on the financial side of the project. He told us that its cost would be about £1,000 per car. He went on to make other comments upon the financial aspect of this project, but he failed to mention an aspect which concerns every Member of Parliament, and that is the public interest. There is a public interest in this matter which has to be safeguarded, and which the hon. Member for Twickenham failed to remember and failed to mention.
One would have thought that even from the Government side of this Chamber some regard would be paid to the public interest and the financial repercussions of this on the Treasury. The Minister has told us that this is simply an enabling Bill permitting him to use a part of the Crown land of Hyde Park which belongs to the community through the Crown. What we are concerned with is a project which, initiated by a Minister of the Crown, will involve considerable financial outlay by some developer and a rather long wait before it yields a return, but which, ultimately, will probably yield a very considerable return. Apart from the amenity aspect, I shall confine myself to this matter of the arrangements which are to be made be-

tween the Minister, on the one hand, and the developer on the other.
When I interjected during the Minister's speech the right hon. Gentleman promised, when I asked him, to elaborate the terms which will be put out to promoters—to the developers—on which to submit tenders. I think that is really the nucleus of this matter before us. What are to be the terms and conditions upon which the Minister, as representing the Crown, the country and Parliament. will allow a private profit-making developer to take possession of this part of Hyde Park? We have not been told enough about that rather important aspect of the matter.
I hope that the Minister will consider dealing with this matter not by way of tender, which the House will be unable to control, comment upon or criticise, but by another method. I hope that he will try to frame his proposals as to the developer in such a way that the House will come into the picture. We in Parliament really should not allow this valuable piece of ground which belongs to the community to be exploited for profit without scrutinising the arrangements very closely, and I hope that possibly tonight, when this debate is wound up by the Government, we shall hear more about the details of the form of tender and about the nominal rent which the Minister mentioned is to be paid for the initial years. I hope, further, that before this matter is finalised as between the Government and the private profit-making developer the House will be able to scrutinise the terms upon which this community property is handed over to a profit-making syndicate.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I too, like the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), have been reprimanded for using a certain amount of over-ingenuity in seeking to find a place in which to leave my car, and therefore it would be fatuous of me to be over-critical of this Bill. But, apart from the question of price, unlike the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), I think it is highly unlikely that there is much profit to be made out of this scheme.
There are two main considerations which everyone looking for a parking


place seeks. The first is that it should be easy to get into and out of, and the second is that it should be reasonably convenient to the place to which one wants eventually to go, and I have certain reservations about this scheme on both scores. It seems to me that this garage will be so big that it will be a major operation to get one's car in and out of it. I was particularly glad to hear that the Minister is thinking of putting a subway underneath the carriageways, because unless that happens—and I hope it will happen quickly—it will really be a major problem to try to cross the carriageways in Hyde Park and Park Lane on foot, particularly now that my right hon. Friend has used sensible traffic engineering and that the flow of traffic is so much quicker than it was.
I think everyone will agree that the Pink Zone parking schemes have been an outstanding success. They have been exceedingly popular with the public.
I would join with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) in hoping that these plans will be used in the future for further underground garage development. I have in mind the rather dreary waste spaces on the Piccadilly side of the Mall which seem now to be used only for the collection of puddles and Where one could easily tunnel out spaces for a very large number of cars. Then again, of course, there is Horse Guards Parade.
Of course, the obvious answer to the question of the development of underground garages really lies in the great squares of London, central to the shopping districts and offices. I wonder whether the Minister has any plans to encourage local authorities or anyone else to build underground garages in St. James's Square, Portman Square, Grosvenor Square, or, indeed, any of the other great squares of London, because that seemed to be a notable omission from the plans which were coming forward on such a large scale for off-street parking in Central London.
We should not get hypnotised by this question of underground parking or think it both cheaper and more desirable. One should be able to park on the surface rather than underground. Most people will now agree that the parking-meter scheme has been a success, but I

am surprised by the amount of space that is allotted to each parking meter. There must be a general assumption on the part of the authorities that almost everyone in London drives a Rolls Royce, whereas, in fact, the number of people driving A30s is substantially greater. If in future this is borne in mind in the provision of surface parking, I am sure that it will be found possible to provide almost as many parking spaces as would come from quite expensive projects of the kind that we are now discussing.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I intervene for a short time in the debate. I represent a constituency which is a long way from London but I have lived and worked in London for many years now, and my wife is a member of London County Council. This is a very important London problem and I confess that I cannot understand what the Bill is intended to do and what effect it is anticipated it can produce. I am given to understand that if the Bill is passed and the underground garage in Hyde Park is created, we may find accommodation for 4,000 cars.

Mr. Mellish: For 1,000 cars.

Mr. Silverman: I have heard higher estimates. But supposing we do, for whom will this relief be effective? Only for those who want to bring their cars into London, leave them idle in London all day and then go home in them. It offers no relief whatever for the real problem of the London motorist, the man who needs to use his car all day long for going about from place to place, leaving it at some place where he needs to call and then picking it up and going on to the next place. This scheme will not help him, except in the sense that it will take off the streets whatever number of street-parkers are now obstructing his progress.
Let us concede that this is, at any rate, an appreciable advantage. It may not be very large but it is something that is assessable and is some kind of relief. But for how long? Does anybody imagine that the rate of increase of the production of cars or of the use of cars in great cities and in London will be retarded? It is an upward curve and will continue to be so. Even if we grant to the fullest extent the most optimistic


estimate of the relief that anyone can foresee in the Bill, in a year or two, if nothing else changes, the position will be as bad as ever.
We shall have to look round for some other kind of relief. The time will come when there is no other kind of relief and we shall still go on pumping out cars in the factories, bringing them to London, and leaving the private motorist the unrestricted right to obstruct everybody else until London traffic finally grinds to a complete standstill.
What sense is there in it? How long do the Government think that we can go on leaving London's streets as they are, pumping ever more and more unrestricted private motors into it, the private motorists parking and driving all day long? If we go on like that, how long will it be before it is impossible to move about in the streets of London? It is almost impossible now in parts of the City and of the West End and indeed of other places. The notion that we can restrict or forbid private motorists to bring their cars into the inner segment of London is greeted with howls of derision and indignant protests about the liberty of the subject, but the liberty of the subject to do what? To bring his car into London and then have nowhere to put it?
Is it the liberty of the subject to bring his car into London and then not to be able to move it about? The liberty of the subject is a real, practical thing. It is not a paper consideration or a slogan. And it is an old principle that if giving everybody unrestricted freedom or licence in a particular respect operates to the detriment of everybody else's freedom, one is entitled without any offence against the liberty of the subject, to intervene and to regulate it. Nobody denies that.
Suppose that we were to say, "No private cars within the central area of London at all." How would the man whom it is supposed to benefit by this scheme be injured? If the Bill goes through and we build an underground garage in Hyde Park, he will drive his car into this garage in the morning, if he can get in and there is room for him, and then he will proceed out to Park Lane and find himself a bus, an underground train, or a taxi and travel to

wherever he wants to go. All well and good. But he could do just the same from Paddington Station, and that is what he would do if we did not allow him to bring his car into Hyde Park.
What would he have lost or suffered? Let hon. Members consider what we could do with the traffic of Central London if private cars did not produce the congestion that they now produce. Consider how we could improve public transport by bus and how we could increase taxi-cab facilities. Everybody would be able to move about more freely, more cheaply, more expeditiously and more conveniently than they can by this exercise of the so-called liberty of the subject to get into everybody's way.
What is the use of tinkering with the problem this way when we know perfectly well that, even if we get the utmost advantage that is contemplated from the scheme, in a year or two the position will be worse than when we started? Let us leave Hyde Park alone. If we are worried about the liberty of the subject, then let us leave him free to enjoy Hyde Park and any other amenities that London has to offer. Nobody will suffer any real deprivation of liberty or amenity or convenience if we make up our minds that this business of going on choking up our streets with an unlimited number of private cars is no good to anybody.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Ede: For some years I have regarded the problem that we are discussing today as one that one can prove logically will ultimately result in nobody being able to move in London at all. Already during certain hours of the day it is quicker to walk than to rely on mechanical transport. I cannot see that any of the alternative schemes will really add to the general comfort, and that is without suggesting that anyone has been speaking foolishly in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), for instance, said that if one lives in the part of the country where I live and wants to get into London, one has to go from Morden by train. I have tried twice during the recent Recess to get into London that way. It has the great advantage that,


whereas before 8 a.m. I cannot get a seat on the Southern Region train at Ewell, West, if I go from Morden I can get a seat provided that I am there when the train doors open. Before we get to Stockwell the whole of the corridor between the seats is crowded with passengers. Trains run into London from Morden with a frequency that I think is entirely admirable as a piece of timing by the people who fix the railway timetable. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton looks as if he is about to leave the Chamber. If he is now hoping to go out of London by train his chances of getting a seat will not be very good. There does not appear to be a reasonable solution to the problem of the people who want to use trains to get into London between seven and nine o'clock in the morning or even a little later than nine.
I cannot understand what will happen when a car gets to Hyde Park and goes into the underground garage. How many of the people who will use their cars to get as far as that have a place of business within a distance from Hyde Park that they are willing to walk? After all, the people who come in by car steadily get their legs atrophied, and a walk of a few yards is a matter of a great discomfort to them. I do not know how they will get out of Hyde Park without first suddenly becoming pedestrians, for they will then have a bit of a walk, I imagine. They then have the walk to their place of business.
Also, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) said that some people want to use their cars during the day to travel from their place of business to keep some appointment or other. Will they walk back to Hyde Park, go out on their business, return to Hyde Park and then walk back to their office? The idea seems to me to be completely fantastic.
I suggest that what will probably happen will be what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) said, that when the people go out of the car park they will want to get on the buses at a time when the buses are already overcrowded. Thus, they will not merely endure discomfort themselves but will inflict greater discomfort upon people who are already going about their business in consider

able discomfort. I think that the patience of the people who travel into and out of London during the rush hours is the finest example that the Christian virtues still exist among the ordinary people of the country. I speak as someone who is not a motorist and whose life is concerned mainly with dodging motor cars every time I want to cross a street. I have been successful so far, but one must never press one's luck too far.
Let us realise that the proposed scheme will benefit very few people, and they will be mainly people who are fairly well blessed with this world's goods. Half a sovereign a day, which I gather is the estimate of what this parking will cost, is a very considerable addition to the travelling expenses of people who have to come up to London at least five days a week. If one adds £2 10s. a week to their travelling expenses, it will represent a very heavy burden for all except comparatively wealthy people.
It seems to me that we have here a problem which we have allowed to get into such a state that any scheme to improve it can generally be riddled by the application of simple logic, a subject which does not, of course, trouble the Minister of Transport, for his optimism is never destroyed by the mere workings of logic in any given situation. The problem requires a great deal more consideration than has so far been given to it. It should be put before a body of people representing all classes of society and all kinds of knowledge relating to the problem.
I could not vote against the Bill, because it will do something. I do not think it helps the people with whom I am mainly concerned, my wretched neighbours who either have to travel up in discomfort from Ewell, West to Waterloo or else go to Morden and endeavour to get on a train there and then suffer great discomfort, such as is experienced between five o'clock and half-past six every evening by persons trying to get out of London without an undue waste of time.
No one can say that this is a good Bill. It reminds me of what the Home Secretary said about a Prime Minister; it is the best Bill we have got. Thank goodness there are not alternatives at the moment with which we can Perplex our


minds. However, if the Minister of Transport really desires to make any impression on the appalling problem of London transport, he must find some people who will give a great deal more frank and clear thought to it than he has so far been able to discover.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: It is a long time since I spoke from this exalted position about transport—or so it appears to me. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to start with a tribute to my very good friend—and, I believe, the friend of the whole House—Tony Wedgwood Benn, who was our leader on transport matters on behalf of the Labour Party and did a magnificent job.
He would have enjoyed this debate today. He would have been in his element and poked a lot of fun at the Minister of Transport—something which he could do very effectively. But he would also have asked a simple question: why is not the Minister of Works replying to this debate? This Bill concerns the Ministry of Works very much, for it involves a Royal Park, and certainly the Minister of Works should have something to say.
The Minister of Transport may be surprised at the reception which the Bill has received in the House. Of course, he is not very adept at estimating the reactions of Parliament. He has his own reactions, which are usually those of a business man's approach, to these matters. He failed to realise, in putting this plan forward and talking about an underground garage in Hyde Park, that one of the most important factors is that this is not just a London park but one of the greatest parks in Great Britain. It is something which is part of our democracy.
I have taken the trouble to read—and I hope that the Minister, when he gets time from studying reports on roads, will do the same—"The History of Twenty-five years (1856–80)" written by Sir Spencer Walpole, dealing with the time when reform movements were active and with the tremendous fights for freedom of the parks and for the freedom of the people.
All this may be taken for granted now, but democracy has not just occurred—

it had to be fought for. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes along and, using typical modern jargon, says that we must have a new use for Hyde Park. He must not be surprised if a number of people have reacted violently. That is why the Minister of Works, who looks after our Royal Parks, should be replying to the debate and giving us assurances about the future of the parks.
Nevertheless, it would be inconsistent for us to oppose this Bill, though perhaps for reasons different from those given by the Minister of Transport, In allowing this Bill a Second Reading, however, we are gravely disturbed by the lack of information which we have had up to date, and we shall want many more assurances before we agree to allow it a Third Reading.
This is not the first debate which we have had on the problem of traffic in great cities. We have been given many figures, both for the present and the future. We believe that the priority in our cities should be for public transport on the main roads. But, having said that, one must ask: How are we to achieve it? Any hon. Member who glibly says that certain parts of Central London should he denied to the private motorist should have a look at the implications.
If we decided to deny a large area to the private motorist, then we should have to bring in legislation in order to do it, and should have to agree to certain classes having permits to use the area despite the ban. Immediately we introduced those permits, the black market boys would print their own, and then we should have the police doing nothing else but look after permits and those who had them.
Having said that, however, it is essential to recognise that we must say to the private motorist that, as the pattern is now forming, it will be such that if he goes into the main roads of our cities he will have to pay dearly, either by off-parking facilities or by parking meters. It is the duty of all of us to ensure that these facilities are given to those who can necessarily afford them. It is as simple as that. It may not be a good doctrine, but in 1965 we shall have 16 million vehicles on the roads. Today we have 8½ million.
The approach, therefore, must be imaginative. We may say that the roads must be kept clear of the private motorist and that all he will be allowed to do is stop to pick up or put down a passenger. But if we do that we must provide him with parking facilities. That is why we on this side of the House consider it inevitable that Hyde Park, or any other park, where practicable, should provide underground facilities for parking. This was a natural consequence of the arguments which have been adduced up to now.
One of the arguable points about this Measure is that the right hon. Gentleman says it is an enabling Bill. He was not able to tell us how this underground garage is to be paid for. He has not yet made up his mind whether it will be privately owned or municipally owned. We believe that it is absolutely monstrous that this has not been decided upon by the Minister at this stage.
Either the Ministry of Works or the London County Council should own it. The Minister has said that the garage will be lucrative, and I am sure that he is right. A thousand cars a day will park there. No doubt it will eventually not only pay for itself but will make a profit. Why should this great facility underneath one of our Royal Parks be handed over to private enterprise to reap the benefit of the profit? It does not seem feasible that the State, if it provides the site to private enterprise because it cannot find sites of its own to develop, should not retain a measure of control.
I believe that this site should be reserved either for the Ministry of Works or for the L.C.C. I cannot believe that it would be very hard to operate, or that it would need many attendants. The municipality would be able to run it just as well as would private enterprise.
Conservative Members should be very careful about this, because at the seaside almost all car parks are owned by the local corporation, and they are run very well. No one complains about that. I imagine that Brighton and Margate and other seaside resorts represented by Conservative Members would resent private enterprise awning their sea-fronts

and taking the profit of the car parks along them.
I realise that I do not speak for everybody on my side of the House, just as the Minister of Transport does not speak for everyone on his side of the House, on this subject, but I believe this car park to be inevitable and a consequence of our having to live with the motorist today.
The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) complained bitterly about Pink Zone parking and asked why it was not continued. There is a great deal to be said for his arguments. The Minister has bragged a great deal about the success of the Pink Zone. If it was such a success, why did he operate it only for Christmas?
The traffic in London, particularly in Central London, is just as bad for the rest of the year as it is at Christmas. I see no reason why facilities for parking should not be allowed. The Minister says that we will be well advised to ask questions of the Minister of Works. The Minister of Works is here today and he should be getting up to answer this debate. His Department is associated with this Bill, which is trying to bring parking to central London. We believe that had the Minister of Works cooperated with the Minister of Transport on the extension of the Pink Zone facilities, it might well have been that Hyde Park need not have come into the matter. However, this car park is obviously something which we have to have because of the removal of many of the facilities which were available at the time of the Pink Zone.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): As the guardian of the amenities of the Royal Parks, I would far rather have cars underneath, where they will not show, than all over the place where they will spoil Hyde Park.

Mr. Mellish: It is a matter of opinion. As they were parked in the Pink Zone, I do not think that they spoil the Park.
The Minister of Transport has this very difficult problem of trying to cater for the motorist and no one—and this applies to hon. Members on both sides of the House—has the right to say that millions of pounds should be taken from motorists while at the same time they are restricted. Nowadays, the


average person wants to buy a car, and nothing will stop that trend. We have to live with this problem.
However, I have a complaint against the Minister of Transport and I should like him to answer some questions. I am advised that the London County Council asked for this underground garage to be built, making its request at the commencement of the Hyde Park scheme, but that the Minister turned down the request.

Mr. Marples: No.

Mr. Mellish: The Minister has this happy knack of saying "No" off the cuff to these questions. For example, I am told that he discussed the matter with the T.U.C. recently and is supposed to have said, again off the cuff, that he intended to drive all private motorists off the roads.

Mr. Marples: No.

Mr. Mellish: I am advised by the London County Council, at a very important level, that the Council pleaded with him to have this scheme ready for implementation at the start of the Hyde Park improvement scheme. In fact there has been a year's delay. Is that true? If so, what does it mean? Has extra cost been incurred because this garage was not started at the same time as the Hyde Park scheme? Is not this delay in the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry very serious?
One of the reasons why we in London welcome the Bill is that it shows a change of policy on the part of the Government. The Minister of Defence, when Minister of Transport, made it perfectly clear that he would not give any special financial assistance towards providing car parks on expensive sites. His general attitude was unfriendly towards such schemes. We support the Bill at this stage because the present Minister has gone out of his way to find a site to try to relieve congestion in London and, in co-operation with the Minister of Works, this financial help is now being given.
We shall not oppose the Second Reading., but in Committee we shall try to tighten the Bill considerably. We shall want to know much more about its financial implications and try to make certain that at the end of the day

this car park is owned either by the Ministry of Works or by the London County Council. We shall want to know far more about the time factor and how long it is proposed to take to construct the car park—the Minister must have some ideas about that—and when it is expected to come into operation. We believe that, providing we are given certain assurances about the amenities of Hyde Park, the Bill will do a useful job for Londoners, motorists and the country generally.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Marples: By leave of the House, I begin by wishing the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) a quick recovery from influenza. He has done splendidly today considering that he has been ill. I must now go on to ask him what was the high level source of the London County Council which said that the Council had met me and that I had turned down its request in connection with the Hyde Park Scheme.

Mr. Mellish: The Planning Committee of London County Council, and Mr. Edmonds was my source.

Mr. Marples: I shall have a word with Mr. Edmonds about it, because when the Hyde Park scheme was going through we were interested in this matter, and I have always been interested in it. Frankly, I was first told by the lawyers that it would be a hybrid Measure, then that it would not be and then that it would be, but I assure the hon. Member that at no time have I refused the L.C.C. or anybody else on this issue. I have been interested in it from the beginning, and I shall certainly get in touch with Mr. Edmonds on the matter.
The hon. Member also referred to some off the cuff remarks which he said I had made when I met the T.U.C. in a 3¼-hour private meeting. We had an agreed Press release, but four different versions of what I said appeared in four different papers the next day. One part was so offensive that I categorically denied it straight away. If the hon. Member wants me to refer him to anybody, I refer him to Mr. Woodcock, the General Secretary of the T.U.C., and I advise the hon. Member to ask him what happened. He will then get the reassurance which he wants.
Apart from that, the hon. Member seemed to agree with a great deal of the Government's policy towards oft-street parking—that it should be provided at economic prices and by local authorities in conjunction with private enterprise. I agreed with him when lie said that the motor car had become almost a symbol of social status. If anybody wants to have a motor car, then I join with the hon. Member in saying that it is premature by a long chalk at this stage to say that private cars should be banned from the centre of London.
I think that the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has not thought out the matter. This is something to be considered carefully. Would doctors be permitted to have private cars in central London? Would commercial travellers be denied their cars in central London—or invalids with tricycles who now have special permits to park in Westminster and to come to London to work? I know of one or two invalids who work in Berkeley Street who have special parking facilities. What about foreigners coming here as tourists? Are not they to be allowed in the centre of London? What about business in the hotels and shops? The centre of London would be destroyed as an area if we took steps as far reaching as that.
If he were here. I would ask the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) whether he drives to London and leaves his car in Palace Yard? I used to come here on my bicycle and he, as a little man, comes in his big car—he can only just see over the steering wheel. I can tell him that it is only by the grace of God and the absence of getting in the hon. Gentleman's way that I am at this Box today. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here, but I have no doubt that he is engaged on other and more important business and I wish him well in his task.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckhenham (Mr. Goodhart) asked what I was doing about parking in other local authority areas. I am to see the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, because in the plans which I hope to make for off-street car parking I propose to lean heavily on local autho-

cities for acquisition of property and to do a deal in partnership, as it were, with private enterprise.
This technique of getting these underground car parks is nothing new. It was used with the Metropolitan Railway years ago when, instead of tunnelling, which was expensive—it was moving the earth which was expensive—a hole was cut and then covered.
Many people have been worried about the amenities of Hyde Park, but I assure them that when the car park is finished they will not be able to see that it is there merely by looking around. I am certain that visually it will be perfectly acceptable to all hon. Members. I offer that assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who sent me his apologies for not being able to be present and who followed me as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I think that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) will agree with me that while I was at the Ministry I did my utmost for the amenity interest of the National Parks and other areas, and I assure the hon. Member that, even with my vested interest as Minister of Transport, I could not have supported this scheme if I had thought that the amenities of Hyde Park would be damaged in any way. I assure him that the scrutiny of my noble Friend the Minister of Works and his Ministry has been as searching as any audit of a joint stock company.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who always enlivens us with his wisdom and wit and whom I congratulate on dodging motor cars for some 78 years—he has done very well and is hale and hearty and will last for a long time yet—

Mr. Ede: I was run down by a penny-farthing in 1890 and it taught me to have great circumspection in walking across the Queen's highway.

Mr. Marples: I can only hope that the rider of the penny-farthing bicycle was not as erratic as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne in his large car.
The right hon. Gentleman might say that I am optimistic, but do not let us be too pessimistic. The Pink Zone arrangement of 1959 was an effort to try


to get us out of a mess at Christmas time. Although there was over 6 per cent. more traffic in that year than in the preceding year the traffic flowed better. This year there was another 6 per cent. increase in traffic yet the Pink Zone worked better than it did in the previous year.
One of the best services that a Minister of Transport can render is to ensure that public transport is able to move freely. One of the difficulties is that buses are so often delayed. This year, as in the previous year, we found London buses running into trouble on the periphery of the Pink Zone. We shall therefore have to spread further and further out.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was kind enough to say that he would not be here when I replied to the debate. He asked what would be the cost of the garage per car. It may vary with the design of the garage, but we expect it to work out at between 7s. and 10s., which is about the price ruling in that part of Mayfair. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked where the money for the lease would go, and pointed out that this was not mentioned in the Bill. I am advised by the legal gentlemen that there is no need to have it in the Bill. Although it is not mentioned, it will, as hon. Members might well know, go to the Exchequer.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about multi-storey car parks. They are being built both in the City of London and in Westminster. He also thought that a car park for 1,000 cars was too large and would not be used. We are certain that it will be. The same thing was said about the Lex-Selfridge Garage, and it was not used until we had parking meters in the streets. When the parking meter system is extended, as it will he this year, the garage will be used. Charges will not be excessive. The operator must get a return on his money, and the price will probably be the same as that in the Lex-Selfridge Garage.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey said that it should go to the local authority. We played fair. We went to the Westminster City Council and gave it first refusal. We asked the Council if it would like to take a lease on this. To be quite frank, the Council was interested at first, but then said that as it had so many other projects

on hand it would be better if we dealt with it in another way. That, however, is not the final answer. The Westminster City Council is the authority responsible for parking meters. I went to the right source. All the Metropolitan boroughs in the City of London are the parking authorities for their own districts, and I do not think that I did wrong in that respect.

Mr. Mellish: Why cannot the Ministry of Works take it over?

Mr. Marples: I do not think that it would be appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to take it over because he is not in business to provide car parks.
It is an education to be at the Dispatch Box. It is an education to hear the conflicting advice that I get from hon. Members opposite. If I appoint a committee they say that there are too many committees. On the other hand, I was faced with a deputation led by the hon. Gentleman who asked me to set up another committee. At Question Time today I was reproved very amiably and in courteous terms, by the hon. Gentleman who considered that I had too much work to do. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering took precisely the opposite line and suggested that I should take on this additional task. Whatever one does when one is a Minister, one is bound to be wrong. The Opposition must make up their minds what they want.
I told the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) that I would place in the Library a copy of the draft lease which we shall send to tenderers. This garage will be let in precisely the same way as the service areas on the M.1. We shall prepare a general specification of what we have in mind for the structure, fire precaution requirements, and so on. The organisations will provide their own designs. We shall vet those designs, and the companies which tender will estimate, as they did for the M.1, their capital costs, their expenses and the income that they are likely to get. After that, they will bid for the lease. They will bid the variable rent which they think they can afford to pay. They may make it variable in many ways. That is the competitive element in it.
We at the Ministry of Transport will watch this very carefully, and the Treasury will watch the Ministry of Transport. The interests of the House will be looked after as they are in the ordinary course of events.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) asked how soon the garage would be ready. The first step is to get the authority through Parliament. People outside sometimes wonder why we are a little slow in this House. They expect us to go straight into Hyde Park and start digging. As soon as the House gives permission—I cannot move before that and it would be improper to do so—and detailed plans are sent out, the actual construction time will depend on whether it includes two summers or two winters. It will take between eighteen months and two years to build—two years at the most. If the weather is fine and not like it has been lately, it will probably be completed within eighteen months of the detailed drawings being ready.
My hon. Friend said that the Ministry should insist on the developers of new office buildings providing adequate off-street car parking facilities. They do that now, and there is no need for additional powers. The standards have been varied by the London County Council and we are again looking at them in the light of modern requirements.
Without any party feeling, I am bound to say that every expert in this country has under-estimated the increase in cars and the amount of garage accommodation required on new housing estates and in new towns. Only eight garages per 100 people have been built in the new towns, and that has proved to be inadequate. The garage accommodation has fallen far short of what is required.
The hon. Member for Rossendale asked why this site had been selected. The answer is that it is a convenient site. It is near Mayfair where sites are very hard to find, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton pointed out, when one does find them they are expensive and may be awkwardly shaped for building. The London County Council as the planning authority—with which I shall be in close contact very shortly on another matter—agrees that a 1,000 car garage will not overload the surrounding

roads. The London Traffic Management Unit has looked at it. My Departmental engineers have also looked at it, and we are certain that it will not overload the roads.
The hon. Member for Rossendale counted 126 trees in the authorised area and asked about the remaining 111 trees. The answer is that we expect the garage itself to be under the parade ground where there are no trees. It is only the entrance and access tunnels which will interfere with the trees.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) made a most interesting speech on underground garages. He asked why we were carving up 36 acres. The answer is that 36 acres were taken as the area in which work would take place—to put the spoil and to get a good amenity background to it—but only six acres will be used for the actual hole in the ground. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not go into the other points that he made because they were rather far-reaching. As he was mat wholly in order during the whole of his speech I do not think that he would expect me to go into matters that he raised as deeply as he did.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), who is always interested in these things, asked what else could be done about off-street parking. I am seeing the Association of Municipal Corporations. I have also seen such people as the Kensington Borough Council. As parking meter schemes are extended it will be necessary for the various authorities to take action to provide facilities for off-street parking, and I want them to prepare their plans in plenty of time.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone that the exhaust vents and emergency exists will be screened. As I said, after it has been completed one would not know that there is a garage there unless one were told.
My hon. Friend quoted from a doctor's letter to say that there was not sufficient accommodation for off-street parking in the area where the doctors normally live and work. St. Marylebone Council was very good. It got a site in Harley Street where it proposed to allow some off-street parking. However, one or two


doctors round there objected to it. Then they wrote to me to say, "Where can I park my car?" I very nearly told them.
I think I have answered most of the questions and have not taken up too much of the time of the House. I am obliged to the House for not opposing the Bill. If the enthusiasm of the other side was not quite what I hoped and expected, I will, nevertheless, drown my disappointment in a few moments. I thank the House for giving the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Commital of Bills).

FLOOD PREVENTION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for consideration; as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 2, lines 7 and 26; Clause 12, page 8, line 12; and Clause 13, page 8, line 30, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Maclay.—[Mr. Maclay.]

Question amended, by adding, at the end:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 2, line 26; Clause 3, page 2, line 38, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. William Ross."—[Mr. Ross.]

and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 2. (POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

7.23 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out first "or".
It might be convenient to the Committee if we also take the Amendment in line 7, after "alteration", insert "or major reinstatement".
Hon. Members will recollect that in Committee I gave an undertaking to consider the drafting of Clause 2 to make it clear that maintenance and management operations were the day-to-day works of a routine nature which any prudent local authority might be expected to carry out and that they were not intended to embrace, for example, the clearance of major obstructions from a watercourse. That was the meaning we tried to convey in the original draft of Clause 2 (1, (a). We specified by a reference to cleansing, clearing and repairing the types of operations which might appropriately signify maintenance and management operations.
I said, however, that I recognised that the use of the word "clearing" in this paragraph might possibly result in local authorities who wish to remove large boulders or other major obstacles from


a watercourse being debarred from carrying out the work under a flood prevention scheme and so not getting a grant. This was never our intention. The Committee will recollect that I undertook at the outset to remove the word "clearing" from the paragraph, and I will deal with that in a subsequent Amendment.
The purpose of the second Amendment now under consideration is to insert the words "or major reinstatement" in Clause 2 (1, c). I think this reference more accurately covers the sort of clearance and restoration work which is beyond the scope of maintenance and which should be dealt with under a scheme and so qualify for grant. As I said, we had never intended it should be otherwise. I am grateful to hon. Members for raising the point. I hope that the Committee will now feel the Amendments effectively cover the matter.
I should, perhaps, say that the first of the two Amendments on this line, which is to leave out the word "or", is purely a drafting Amendment which is consequential on the second Amendment.

Mr. William Ross: Since we are discussing both proposed Amendments together, I think it is only fair to express our appreciation to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for having listened to what we said in Committee and to have gone this far in making these changes. I cannot, however, entirely agree with him about what he has said. I persuaded him in Committee that it would be unfair to ask a local authority to take over a new responsibility, such as a watercourse, and to clear it and put it in a state of proper efficiency. The initial operation might well be quite a considerable one and might be a very expensive one. Where the Government have the ward "clearing" in the original Clause, it meant that no grant would be available and the operation would be considered to be purely a matter of maintenance. However, our logic prevailed and the Government said they would do something about it.
We will look at what they have done. They propose to put in the words "or major reinstatement". Our complaint—and it is one we voice time and time again about the Government, and particularly about a certain Scottish Minis-

ter—is that they just cannot resist the lure of language. If a thing is simple they have to put in some other word. Obviously, if we are asking a local authority to assume a new responsibility and that responsibility is a watercourse, which is not in a reasonable condition, and the local authority, first of all, has to reinstate it, the Government are not satisfied with the simple word "reinstatement", but they must have the words "major reinstatement". Why on earth should it be "major reinstatement".
We must appreciate that it is going to be left to the Secretary of State to decide whether it is "major" or whether it is "minor". If this is the differentiation that will be placed on it the difference to the local authority is whether it will be grant aided. I presume that if it is merely a reinstatement, somehow or other someone will contrive to call it maintenance. I hope that having gone so far to be persuaded in Committee the Secretary of State will be persuaded to leave well alone in relation to the word "reinstatement" at which he first arrived. I hope that he will resist the temptation to put in a word which merely complicates, obstructs and restricts the work of local authorities in relation to what they might be able to get from the Government in carrying out a task which, hitherto, has not been their responsibility.
With those remarks, I invite the Joint Under-Secretary to say that he is prepared to consider the position and to see whether he can, at a later stage, delete the word "major", so leaving the matter quite clear and yet still within the bounds of the authority of the Secretary of State. Why not trust local authorities for a change? Let us get rid of this horror of clarity which seems to come over the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or the Secretary of State when he deals with legislation in relation to Scottish affairs.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Having heard the lucid and persuasive plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I am sure that the Government will have something to say. I appreciate that the Joint Under-Secretary may feel that he is not empowered to concede anything, but we


have with us tonight the Secretary of State, who is always amenable to the reasoning put forward from this side of the Committee. He appreciates its cogency and understands the fight that we put up to get the best we can for Scotland. I should think that he would appreciate the very good arguments put forward by my hon. Friend.
What does the word "major" mean? When does "major" cease to be major and become minor? I do not know. The Lord Advocate is also here tonight, completing a veritable array of talent, legal and everything else, on the Front Bench. I am sure that he would be prepared to advise us on the meaning of the word. He will be able to tell us what construction the courts will place upon it.
I can understand the meaning of the phrase "reinstate a watercourse", but I cannot understand how it can be reinstated in a major way. If a local authority reinstates a watercourse it reinstates it. There is a good reason for leaving the word out. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in the final analysis the Secretary of State will decide whether to accept the proposals of a local authority. If he thinks that something is not the kind of reinstatement which should qualify for grant, I have no doubt that he will tell the local authority, "This is not in order under a flood prevention scheme; this is the type of work we expect you, as a local authority, to carry out in connection with the maintenance of the scheme." He will send the application back and suggest that the authority should frame the scheme again, leaving that part of it out.
The inclusion of the word "major" is likely to deter a local authority from applying. It will be apt to think that the grant is paid only for something big. That is surely what the word "major" means. Members of a local authority, seeing the word, are likely to say, "We had better not put this in," and will be apt not to apply for the moneys which the House, including the hon. Member, thinks it is entitled to. I am sure the hon. Member would not like to treat local authorities in that way. In those circumstances, I hope that we shall have some reply on this point. There is something in this argument. The word

"major" does not seem to serve any useful purpose, especially in view of the other safeguards contained in the Bill.

Mr. Galbraith: The word "major", to which the hon. Member has taken exception, was put in in order to differentiate between the minor sort of reinstatement which might come under cleansing and the major kind which might occur if large boulders had to be cleared out. However, I agree with the hon. Member that there is not a great deal in it, and I am prepared to consider deleting the word.

Mr. Ross: That is very generous of the Joint Under-Secretary. He has just made one of the best speeches I have heard from him for a long time. If we go on in this way we shall finish up with a really good Bill, despite all its limitations.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I want to clear my own mind on this point. The Joint Under-Secretary will know that in Clause 3 (2, b) there is a reference to the paragraph which the Amendment would alter. It refers to the fact that the powers mentioned in the paragraph
shall (without prejudice to the generality of that paragraph) include power to remove any dam or other work situated, or any tree growing, in, on, over or under the watercourse.
Is the Minister quite certain that the insertion of the words "major reinstatement" will not be misleading when read in conjunction with that paragraph?

Mr. Galbraith: We shall be able to consider that point in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 7, after "alteration", insert or major reinstatement".—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out line 26.
This Amendment will come as no surprise to the Joint Under-Secretary. If the words proposed to be left out are retained, it will mean that the Secretary of State has power to tell local authorities, at the start, that whatever else they do in relation to flood preventing operations they must not do anything about sewers or water mains. He may regard me as a little churlish, because he has


answered some of our arguments by putting down a later Amendment. It is true that that Amendment partly meets the points we made in Committee, but even if we accepted it as adequate I do not see why he should not see his way to accept this Amendment.
If, in the first and most important operational Clause, we provide that a local authority can do A, B, C, D, E, F and G, it seems strange to provide that it must not do anything about sewers or water mains when, in Clause 12, we provide that it can do something about them, even if only in a limited way.
Secondly, bearing in mind the fact that the Clause is governed by the reference to the purpose of the Bill, which is
for the prevention or mitigation of flooding of non-agricultural land
in the areas of local authorities, the construing of any reference to a watercourse as including a sewer or water main would mean that any operations in addition to that work must be operations relating to flood prevention or mitigation.
In that respect, the fears that he expressed in the Standing Committee are quite unjustified—the will remember what they were, although he may not like to be reminded of what he said. He said—and I think that this is the real reason behind the Government's obduracy—that unless those words were there some unscrupulous Scottish local authority would use these powers to get, perhaps, a new sewer or something like that, and would get a better grant under this Measure than under other legislation. I think that under the desk of every civil servant at the Scottish Office there must be a placard with the words, "Never forget—do not trust the local authorities".
Not only have we the limiting words that the work must be related to flood prevention or mitigation, but we have the overall dominion and surveillance and control of the Secretary of State over all these things. I cannot therefore conceive of some small—or large authority—even if it were so unscrupulous as to try that sort of thing—being able to get round the whole Scottish Office. Even if it did, I am perfectly sure that it would not get past

the eye of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I still think, therefore, that although the Government have gone in a very roundabout and imperfect way to meet objections that during the Committee stage they considered were valid, they would have done far better to accept the advice we gave on these words and on the financial provision Clause, which would permit grants to be given for work connected with the sewers and water mains.
They have done the second part of the job for us, and acceptance of the Amendment would, I think, put us in the position of trusting the Secretary of State, trusting the local authorities, and trusting the words of the Bill that anything done in relation to these things would be related to flood prevention and mitigation. The Government's Amendments are not at the moment under discussion, so I shall not deal with them, but I think that they are subject to valid criticisms that could be better met were this Amendment accepted.

Mr. William Baxter: I support the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). In the course of cleaning up a river, an authority might have to deepen it, and that, in turn, might mean an alteration of some water main or sewer belonging, perhaps, to a local authority adjacent to that doing the work. If the Clause is left as it is, that could give rise to a certain amount of feeling, and it would be in the best interests of local authorities and of the Department if the Government were to accept this Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: To leave in line 26 will undoubtedly cause confusion. By a later Amendment, the Government show that they are cognisant of the difficulty here, and are, I presume, indicating that they would be prepared to take our point of view where a local authority, in relation to a water main or a sewage pipe, had to divert the previous course or, in deepening operations, had to lower the existing level. To do that is quite common. Since I spoke on this subject in the Standing Committee I have taken particular note of the number of authorities that have, passing through their townships, burns and rivers in which are


housed sewage systems, water mains and other like services.
It is possible that we have been a little timorous; perhaps we should also have included electricity, gas and other services. We want our view to be very firmly in the Government's mind. Acceptance of this Amendment would avoid misunderstanding and confusion. As the Amendment standing in the name of the Joint Under-Secretary goes more or less the whole way on this matter, I do not see much value in now retaining this line. When the Government's Amendment is accepted they will assume the onus in that connection, so I do not see that the hon. Gentleman is laying himself open to anything such as he fears.

Mr. Galbraith: After the pleasant way in which we started our proceedings, I must confess that I thought that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was perhaps slightly churlish in not accepting what we proposed.
The effect of this Amendment—which, as the hon. Gentleman stated, we discussed at considerable length in the Scottish Standing Committee—would be to include sewers and water mains as defined in Clause 15 amongst the watercourses on which, under the Bill, local authorities could do work. I said in Committee that I could not agree that a local authority should be able by this Bill to carry out work that should be done as part of its own or another authority's responsibility for sewering or for providing water for its area. Perhaps the phrase I then used—of which hon. Members have been good enough to remind me—was a little unfortunate.
On that occasion, however, I undertook to look at the drafting of Clause 2 to see whether anything could be done to allow local authorities to carry out under the Bill work on a sewer or water main to the extent that such work was necessary to prevent urban flooding. I have done this, and while I do not wish to anticipate consideration of later Amendments, I think that I can say that we have achieved the desired results by the Amendments that my right hon. Friend seeks to make in Clause 12, page 8, line 12, and in Clause 13, page 8, line 30.
The Amendment that we are now discussing goes very much further than is

necessary to achieve what the Opposition asked me in Committee to try to achieve. It would not only enable flood prevention authorities to carry out work on installations that are the concern—and, in some cases, the highly specialist concern—of the sewerage and water authorities, but would make it possible for the flood authorities "to encroach on functions that properly belong to those other bodies.
I have given this matter very careful thought—because I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that it might have been better if we could have introduced the concept at this early stage in the Bill rather than later on—but I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the proper thing to do in order to achieve what the Opposition want is to arrange for any necessary work on sewers and water mains to be specified in the flood prevention scheme, and to have it done—with the assistance of whatever contribution from the flood prevention authority may be thought appropriate—by the authority whose job it is to provide these water or sewerage services.
Our Amendments enable the flood authorities to get grant on the contribution which they make for this purpose to the sewerage and water authorities. As that also meets another point made by the Opposition, I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will not feel disposed to press the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: I did not find the argument of the hon. Gentleman very convincing. By leaving these words in Clause 2, he indicates to local authorities at the beginning of the Bill That when they are dealing with watercourses they cannot include any sewers or water mains. He says that he has met us—we are very grateful for that—by making provisions later in the Bill, in Clauses 12 and 13, for work to be done on those and to be paid for. I wonder whether that does what the hon. Gentleman says it does—makes it possible for those to be included in flood prevention schemes.
Clause 2 deals with the powers of local authorities in the preparation of flood prevention schemes and in maintaining and managing such schemes. In that Clause the hon. Gentleman deliberately excludes these two things, yet he has told us in justification that he wants


a local authority to include them in schemes put before him. Unless he does something about these words, or puts something into Clause 4 which tells us about flood prevention schemes, it does not seem that he will be giving a local authority power to do the things for which he is now providing the money.
He is deliberately excluding the local authority from undertaking this work while at the same time providing money for it to be carried out. Surely there is a contradiction there. The contradiction comes out all the more clearly by virtue of what the hon. Gentleman has said in justification for refusing to accept this Amendment. If he left these words out, what difference would it make? The local authority would include the work. I have no doubt that it would see that it was done in the best possible way, as the local authority responsible for sewerage and drainage, or by another authority responsible for those services. If the local authority tried to take the Scottish Office for a ride—a particularly difficult thing to do, I imagine—the safeguard would be that the scheme has to be approved by the Secretary of State. In view of that, there is no need for these wards.
This suspicious attitude of mind towards local authorities is astonishing. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) have all given many valuable years of service to local authorities. They have played leading parts in local authorities. With the wealth of their experience on how local authorities operate, they have said to the hon. Gentleman that it would be better to leave these words out. In view of the practical advice he has been offered and the arguments which he must admit have some validity, surely the hon. Gentleman can look at this matter again?
We appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has done in relation to later provisions, but that will not have value if a local authority cannot do anything under those provisions. We cannot see how that can be done if these words are left in the Bill.

Mr. Galbraith: The difficulty is that hon. Members opposite have not appreciated the practical problems involved. They seem to be assuming that the flood prevention authority and the sewerage authority are to be the same.

Mr. Manuel: They usually are.

Mr. Galbraith: They may be, or they may not be. I agree that if they are the same authority there is not the same obstacle in the way of accepting the Amendment, but equally they may not be the same authority. That is where we run into difficulties; because, if the Amendment were accepted, it would be giving the flood prevention authority power to enter in and act on another authority's sewers or water mains.
On reflection, I think that is something which the whole Committee would agree would not be a good thing. For that reason, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: We had lengthy discussions on this point in Committee upstairs, but this is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has dragged in this argument. The Bill gives the right to a local authority to go into another local authority's area and on to someone else's land to conduct operations in relation to that land The hon. Gentleman should appreciate, also, that that could be done only under a flood prevention scheme, and, before such a scheme is even discussed with the Secretary of State, it has to be advertised. Anyone with any concern in relation to it has the right to give evidence and make objections. I think the hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of a small molehill.
Bearing in mind that in most cases the sewerage authority, the water authority and the local authority doing work, are most likely to be the same authority, the sewers and water mains are most likely to be within the area of the authority which initiates the scheme. I do not say that that will always be the case, but I think the difficulties are being overestimated. On the other hand, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not underestimating the difficulties in relation to his solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) put some very cogent points. That is why I allowed this Amendment to remain on the


Notice Paper, despite the fact that the Joint Under-Secretary has suggested that there is a way round this difficulty without making any change in the Clause. We shall have to examine that point when we come to it. I do not know whether the Lard Advocate has looked at this from the point of view of the legality of the alternative to the Amendment I have moved. A flood prevention scheme includes flood prevention operations and those operations are specifically defined in the Clause. That means that they will not include anything to do with sewers and water mains.

8.0 p.m.

There are considerable difficulties in what the hon. Gentleman has suggested. We are pressing the Amendment, not only because we think it is right, but because we have doubts about the validity of the Government Amendment, well meaning as it is within its limits. Does not the Minister appreciate that all the restrictions which he requires are in the Clause to meet the objections which he has advanced both in Standing Committee and today? This cannot be dealt with at all unless there is a scheme for flood prevention or mitigation. It must be included in a flood prevention scheme if it is to attract grant. If it is only maintenance, it does not come within the scheme and the Secretary of State is not concerned because he is making no payment. If it is to cost anything, then it must be in a scheme which must be prepared and published to everyone, including any authority which might be concerned. Finally, the scheme must be confirmed by the Secretary of State.

For the life of me I cannot understand why the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State do not see the logic and the sense of that. They are being far too timorous. I cannot help feeling that it is not the last argument which the hon. Member advanced which carries weight with him. He had made up his mind long before he produced it. The true reason is that he fears that local authorities might get away with something. The Government lack faith in themselves because, after all, they have to confirm the schemes. I feel very strongly about this, because what we suggest is such common sense. We must press common sense on the Government,

and I therefore ask my hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment.

Mr. Manuel: Surely this is not a subject on which we ought to have to divide. The Joint Under-Secretary of State said that the authority concerned might be the local authority but it might not. If it were not the local authority directly, it would most probably be one of a combination of local authorities. A sewerage authority, after all, is not an abstract body divorced from local authorities; it is either itself a local authority or is in partnership with other local authorities in dealing with a sewerage scheme. The Minister is making confusion worse confounded by taking the powers outwith the local authorities.
I am convinced that the provisions we suggest would create not the slightest difficulty. The local authorities would agree harmoniously about this. With experience of this work, I say that the Minister's fears are quite unfounded. I challenge him, because I think that he has made no sounding of local authority opinion in this matter. I am certain that had he done so he would have received every assurance he wanted about possible future difficulties.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) accuses me of being suspicious of local authorities. The trouble with him is that he is suspicious of me and my motives, and without any justification.
Although he does not believe me, I have tried to meet his point about whether a local authority should have power to meddle with another local authority's sewers. It is a matter of judgment. The hon. Member considers that the local authority ought to have power to do so, but I consider that it ought not. I had hoped that it would not be necessary for the Committee to divide on this Amendment, but in any event I cannot make any further move at all on this subject.

Mr. W. Baxter: This proposal is only incidental to the scheme being proposed by the local authority. It proposes a scheme to the Minister for flood prevention in an area and, in the course of carrying it out, it finds it necessary to interfere with another local authority's sewers or water pipes. Surely it is reasonable in those circumstances that


the authority which presented the flood prevention scheme should have power to deepen the mains or alter the course of a main without having to consult the other authority and to hold up the scheme. The only way in which it would be interfering would be in deepening the river for flood prevention purposes—and those are the purposes of the Bill.
The necessity to consult other local authorities will add a great deal of extra time and trouble. I have been associated

Division No. 36.]
AYES
[8.8 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Percival, Ian


Aitken, W. T.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pilkington, Capt. Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, John
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Balniel, Lord
Hastings, Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Barlow, Sir John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Prior, J. M. L.


Barter, John
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Berkeley, Humphry
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Black, Sir Cyril
Hendry, Forbes
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bossom, Clive
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Ramsden, James


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hiley, Joseph
Relmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Box, Donald
Hill Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Renton, David


Brewis, John
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Julian


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hobson, John
Roots, William


Channon, H. P. G.
Holland, Philip
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Chataway, Christopher
Hollingworth, John
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hopkins, Alan
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Seymour, Leslie


Cleaver, Leonard
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Sharples, Richard


Cole, Norman
Hughes-Young, Michael
Shaw, M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stodart, J. A.


Coulson, J. M.
Jackson, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Critchley, Julian
Jennings, J. C.
Tapsell, Peter


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Curran, Charles
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Temple, John M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Deedes, W. F
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


de Ferranti, Basil
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, Anthony
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Doughty, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Duncan, Sir James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Elliott, R.W. (N'wc'stle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Tweedsmulr, Lady


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Vane, W. M. F.


Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Finlay, Graeme
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wall, Patrick


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Ward, Dame Irene


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Marten, Nell
Watts, James


Freeth, Denzil
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, William


Gammans, Lady
Mills, Stratton
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gardner, Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nabarro, Gerald
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey
Woodhouse, C. M.


Goodhew, Victor
Noble, Michael
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Nugent, Sir Richard
Woollam, John


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Worsley, Marcus


Green, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, West)



Gresham Cooke, R.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Partridge, E.
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Pearson.


Gurden, Harold
Peel, John





NOES


Ainsley, William
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Boardman, H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Beaney, Alan
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leios, S.W.)


Awbery, Stan
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

with local authorities for a long time, and I think that it is foolish to include the Clause in the Bill as at present drafted. The Bill simply enables the presentation of flood prevention schemes, and the interference with sewerage and water mains would be only incidental to the operation.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 170, Noes 128.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Chetwynd, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Ross, William


Colliok, Percy
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Short, Edward


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Crosland, Anthony
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
McCann, John
Small, William


Darling, George
McInnes, James
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Snow, Julian


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mackie, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McLeavy, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steele, Thomas


Diamond, John
Manuel, A. C.
Stones, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Mapp, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sylvester, George


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Marsh, Richard
Symonds, J. B.


Evans, Albert
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fernyhough, E.
Millan, Bruce
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Fletcher, Eric
Milne, Edward J.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thornton, Ernest


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Tomney, Frank


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin


Gourlay, Harry
Neal, Harold
Warbey, William


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Watkins, Tudor


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oram, A. E.
Weitzman, David


Gunter, Ray
Oswald, Thomas
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Owen, Will
Whitlock, William


Hannan, William
Padley, W. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hayman, F. H.
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hilton, A. V.
Pentland, Norman
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Holman, Percy
Popplewell, Ernest
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Howell, Charles A.
Prentice, R. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Proctor, W. T.



Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Randall, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Rankin, John
Mr. Cronin and Mr. Ifor Davies.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end to insert:
and in the foregoing subsection cleansing ' in relation to a watercourse means the removal from the watercourse of mud, silt, debris or other obstructive matter in the ordinary course of good maintenance".
The Amendment follows on from what I have already said on the earlier Amendments, taking major reinstatements out of the category of maintenance work. Its purpose is to clarify for those who will operate the Bill the types of minor operations which will be covered by maintenance work.
Hon. Members will remember that we had a fairly lengthy discussion in Committee on the theoretical distinction between cleansing and clearing a watercourse. This served to demonstrate the doubt which might have arisen with these words in juxtaposition. During the course of the debate, I was asked by hon. Members opposite to define the meaning of "cleansing" in this subsection. I explained then that the reference was intended to cover comparatively simple operations, such as the removal from a watercourse of weeds, branches or sand if it was causing silting.
I have given further consideration to the point and feel that it might be helpful if the matter were put beyond doubt by defining the operation of cleansing in the Bill. The Amendment does this, and at the same time serves to make it doubly clear that major clearance of a watercourse is not intended to be dealt with under maintenance operations and so will qualify for a grant. I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to the Committee in the same way as the earlier Amendments have done.

Mr. Ross: All I want to do is to give the Joint Under-Secretary full marks. He has done very well indeed, because the original wording of the Clause was very complicated and far from clear. A very telling speech on cleansing was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). I hope to convince even my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that the Government have done very well in the definition of "cleansing".
The hon. Gentleman said that we had had a long argument in Committee. He keeps talking about long arguments. The trouble is that it takes a very long


argument to persuade the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to accept common sense. I think that he will admit that by adding these words he has made the position much more clear. To that extent it is a much better Bill. I hope that in future he will be much more grateful when he improves his Bill as a result of our complaints and helpful suggestions in Committee.

Mr. W. Baxter: I seek clarification. The Amendment seeks to define cleansing as removing mud, silt and debris. What about effluent from an industrial undertaking or a badly constructed or obsolete sewage works? That can cause obstruction in watercourses. How would that be dealt with under the Bill?

Mr. Galbraith: If a watercourse was obstructed by it, it would come under the Bill. If it were not, the effluent might have to be dealt with under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, to leave out from "that" to "flooding" in line 39.
This raises the point on which we had fairly considerable discussion in Committee. As the Bill stands these words would appear to me to mean, apart from what the right hon. Gentleman said that they meant, that a local authority could never carry out a flood prevention scheme if the flooding of agricultural land was incidental to that scheme. That is good enough. But the argument that I put forward in Committee was that the general impression created in the mind of anyone reading the Bill, when he read the words:
 … an incidental result of the exercise …
would be that a small amount of agricultural land might be covered but not a large amount. I think that the average town councillor or town clerk would probably place that interpretation upon

the words. We discovered during the course of the proceedings that in point of fact a local authority could carry out a scheme designed to prevent or mitigate the flooding of land in its area, not being agricultural land, even though one of the results of the scheme was perhaps to prevent and mitigate the flooding maybe of hundreds of acres of agricultural land.
During the course of the Bill, I put to the right hon. Gentleman the example of a small river valley being dealt with simply as the result of the local authority, the county council or some other authority, undertaking a scheme under the Bill to prevent the flooding of urban property in one small village. This is what could happen. One can think of small villages that are from time to time flooded. A local authority could under this Bill—this was the interpretation placed upon it by the Government and I was very pleased as well as surprised by this interpretation—prepare a scheme to prevent the flooding of this wee village of maybe twenty or thirty houses. Although the scheme itself might be of a character to prevent the flooding of hundreds of acres of land in the same river valley, it would be still possible to carry it out under the Bill. The argument at the time was that with these words in the Bill no local authority would think that that was possible. It was argued that the word "incidental" would convey the impression that it was permissible to prevent the flooding of say twenty acres—a small area—of agricultural land as an incidental result.
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that prevention of flooding of hundreds, if not thousands, of acres would be incidental to the scheme. He admitted that that would be, a correct legal interpretation of the words, but that is not the impression given to people reading the Bill. Therefore, we suggested in Committee that the right hon. Gentleman should look at this again to see whether another form of words could be found. I believe that he undertook to do that. We should like to know the result of his researches and what he has done in this matter.
I put to him this point that, even if he leaves these words, his fears that a scheme might be possible which dealt solely with agricultural land cannot be


real fears when we come to read Clause 1 (1), which states:
For the purpose of preventing or mitigating the flooding of land in their area, not being agricultural land, any council to whom this section applies may, so far as they think fit and subject to the provisions of this Act, exercise all or any of the powers specified in subsection (1) of the next following section.
I do not pretend to be a lawyer, but it seems to me that with that subsection in the Bill it would be quite safe to leave out the words that we propose should be let out, and that the local authority would still only be enabled to carry out a flood prevention scheme under the Bill if in fact the primary purpose of that scheme was to deal with flooding. The Lord Advocate may be able to tell us whether that is in fact the legal interpretation. It seems to me that it may be the legal interpretation, in which case these words could be left out, and if they were left out, I think that the local authority would have a better' idea of what is possible under the Bill.
I am quite sure that many local authorities, as the Bill stands at present, would not place upon it the construction that was placed upon it by the Government during Committee stage. I do not think that any of my hon. Friends thought that the Bill meant what the right hon. Gentleman said that it meant, and I do not think that any of 'his hon. Friends thought so either. If that were thought by Members of Parliament who study the Bill, I think that it could equally be thought by local authority officials who study the Bill. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he would be prepared to have another look at the Clause to see if these words can be left out or some other words put in their place.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant): As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) so rightly said, this matter was discussed at some length in Standing Committee. I believe the matter was left in this way that I would be prepared to reconsider the word "incidental" on the basis that I would welcome his advice on the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The question was whether we should get another word to replace the adjective "incidental". I have thought very hard, as I am sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has, and it appears that neither of us,

so to speak, has born fruit in that respect.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that during the Committee stage I tendered about eight columns of advice which were duly recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. He might at least have read and studied that advice. I appreciate that he would not be able to grasp all the points during the Committee stage.

The Lord Advocate: I have read more than once what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, but the advice which he tendered was not what I would call "incidental" advice.
The position, as was explained to the Committee, is that a local authority can do work on agricultural land if it is necessary for the purpose of preventing or mitigating flooding on non-agricultural land. All that this amounts to if we leave the words in, is to make it clear that if work is done on agricultural land it must be an essential part of the flood prevention operations on non-agricultural land.

8.30 p.m.

The hon. Member referred back to the opening lines of Clause 1 and he suggested that if the words were left in local authorities might be uncertain what was intended. My view is that the words make it clear that if their main purpose is the prevention of urban flooding, if I may put it that way, they may do work on agricultural land if that is incidental to that main purpose. If I may put it in a slightly military way, let me describe the operation of the exercise. Incidentally, we had a little trouble about "exercise" in Committee, but we are not now dealing with that. First, we get an operation order and then we get the object. Here we have the object—the prevention of flooding on urban nonagricultural land. To attain that object one is allowed to do anything incidental to that, even if one goes beyond the scope of the non-agricultural battle field, if I may put it in that way. If we get into trouble, it will only be through leaving out those words.

Agricultural land can be dealt with under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1958.

Mr. Manuel: Mr. Manuel indicated dissent.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for Central Ayshire (Mr. Manuel) shakes his head. I say it can be. I do not say it necessarily will be. The powers are there. This is to make it clear that if there is an overlap, the overlap onto the agricultural land can only be as an incidental result of the main purpose in the Bill, that is preventing or mitigating flooding in the urban or non-agricultural land.

Mr. Manuel: I am grievously disappointed by the contribution from the Lord Advocate. I have spoken frequently on this aspect of the problem. In the context of many schemes that will be put up to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the word "incidental" will be quite wrong and misleading.
I want to pose to the Committee the main problem in my consituency which I am sure the Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretary of State know well. I am thinking of the village of Glengarnock where there will not be a great urban area to be dealt with, but none the less it will be to deal with that urban problem that the scheme will be presented The agricultural part of it will be incidental to it so far as costs or length of river are concerned It will be several miles below the village of Glengarnock that the river will need to be deepened and it is on that that the main cost of the scheme will arise To say that it is incidental would be misleading and would give a completely wrong impression.
I should have thought that the Lord Advocate, instead of giving us wisecracks would have considered some more appropriate word to cover the situation. We must be definite that this means that where agricultural ground has to be relieved of flooding to a much greater extent than the urban area which is being cleared, the job will nevertheless not be held up.
I hope that we can make it perfectly clear that we intend to solve flooding problems and to present urban flood prevention schemes even though the greater part of the area is agricultural land. I hope that we shall have a definite assurance from the Secretary of State that, even though the scheme would be largely relieving agricultural flooding,

if the main complaint is, as he knows it has been at Glengarnock, of the flooding of a factory and houses in the village, he will not resolve not to authorise the scheme because the greater part of the on-cost would lead to the relief of agricultural land in the area.

Mr. W. Baxter: It seems to me that the word "incidental" conveys the impression of something of no importance or of a somewhat slight nature pertaining to the scheme. It does not indicate, as we would like it to indicate, that it may be a major portion of the scheme. I would suggest that the word "incidental" be left out and that the wording should read, "Notwithstanding that as a result of certain operations this is required to be done" or words to that effect. Words of that kind would let it be seen in the proper light that this may be an important operation and not a small, incidental part of the whole. The Lord Advocate should clarify that point.

The Lord Advocate: I am certainly willing to look at any suggestion that the hon. Member makes. As for the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I have looked at it and he will remember that I said in Committee, not with my tongue in my cheek but quite honestly, that any assistance that he could give me I would gratefully receive

Mr. Willis: I am rather humble about these matters, and, as the Lord Advocate knows, the legal profession in Scotland has a very valiant champion in the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. But I must say that, after listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, my unbounded admiration for the legal profession in Scotland has been sadly diminished on learning that he is unable to find a suitable alternative to this word. We suggested to the right hon. and learned Gentleman words such as "as a result of the exercise" or "notwithstanding that one result of the exercise is so-and-so" or something of that kind.
Surely it was not beyond the wit of the legal profession and of this eminent body of people gathered in Edinburgh to advise some words which would have met this point. I am losing faith gradually in the legal profession and coming


more and more to admire the sea lawyer tactics of some of my hon. Friends rather than the activities of the genuine lawyers in Parliament.

Mr. James Dempsey: I can recall the discussions on this matter. I can remember that the Lord Advocate was offered several words and that the lay members of the Committee guided the right hon. Gentleman. It is surprising to find that at this stage the Lord Advocate, with all the legal wit at his command and all the intelligentsia of St. Andrew's House at his elbow, cannot find a suitable word.

The Lord Advocate: I sometimes can express in a single word what I feel about speeches by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Dempsey: I am sure that after all the assistance, guidance and advice that the Lord Advocate has been given tonight, he could have another look at this subsection and at the terms of the Amendment. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows a suitable word—and I hope that it will not be a four-letter word, incidentally—I am sure that he could put it before us at the next stage of the Bill to be incorporated in the Clause to meet this point.

Mr. Ross: My attitude to legislation, particularly when we get some of the pearls of wording that are advocated by the Lord Advocate, has been "Never put a word in when you can take some out." What we are proposing in our Amendment is to delete some words, which will leave us with perfect sense. It will also remove "incidental" altogether. What is the need for that word? After all, nothing can be initiated in this matter unless, first of all, it is for the purposes of preventing or mitigating flooding in non-agricultural land.
With our Amendment the Clause would read:
notwithstanding that flooding of land other than such land … is prevented or mitigated.
That is perfectly clear. There would be no complications and no false impressions over what "incidental" means.
It is 1st February today. We discussed this matter on 8th December, and the Lord Advocate has spent hours each day since then wondering what he can do to

get rid of "incidental" which causes wrong ideas to spring up in the minds of the Opposition—and also in the minds of hon. Members opposite, because we had a variety of legal and non-legal interpretations of what "incidental" meant. We had an indication of the vastly widened scope of flood prevention in relation to the Bill in the first speech by the Joint Under-Secretary. There we saw the whole of Scotland as the scope of the battleground—if I may use the strange metaphors of the Lord Advocate—in the exercise of flood prevention.
Let the Lord Advocate study again exactly what our Amendment does. Let him place it in its setting not only in relation to this Clause but in relation to the words that govern action under the Bill, and I defy him to pick holes in it from any legal point of view. There is no doubt about that. Why is the assembled trinity of legislators representing Scotland on the Government Front Bench so unwilling to accept common sense and clarity when it is placed before it? If we do not get an adequate reply, we must once again take our common sense into the Division Lobbies.

Mr. Thomas Steele: After the speeches from this side of the Committee, we ought at least to be told the reason why the Lord Advocate, after his thoughts on the matter, wants these words kept in the Bill.

The Lord Advocate: I have two principles: one is that I am in favour of brevity and the other is that I am in favour of clarity. My opening speech was commendably brief. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) thought I was about to sit down and I thought that he intended to intervene, and that rather shortened my speech.
I have looked at this matter, and I realise the force of the argument about the operative words at the beginning of the Bill, but I consider that, from the point of view of clarity, it is made perfectly clear in the Clause that the powers must be subject to the consideration that the main object must be the prevention of flooding in non-agricultural land but that the work can be carried out notwithstanding that an incidental result is the flooding of land which is of an agricultural character.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

NOES


Ainsley, William
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hannan, William


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Awbery, Stan
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hayman, F. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Dempsey, James
Hilton, A. V.


Beaney, Alan
Diamond, John
Holman, Percy


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Boardman, H.
Evans, Albert
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Fernyhough, E.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fletcher, Eric
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Forman, J. C.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Ginsburg, David
Kenyon, Clifford


Collick, Percy
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Crosland, Anthony
Grey, Charles
McCann, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McInnes, James


Darling, George
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
McKay, John (Walisend)

The Committee divided: Ayes 160, Noes 124.

Mackie, John
Popplewell, Ernest
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


McLeavy, Frank
Prentice, R. E.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Manuel, A. C.
Probert, Arthur
Thornton, Ernest


Mapp, Charles
Proctor, W. T.
Ungood-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Randall, Harry
Wainwright, Edwin


Marsh, Richard
Rankin, John
Warbey, William


Millan, Bruce
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, Tudor


Milne, Edward J.
Ross, William
Weitzman, David


Mitchison, G. R.
Short, Edward
Wells, Peroy (Faversham)


Morris, John
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Whitlock, William


Moyle, Arthur
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Neal, Harold
Small, William
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Oram, A. E.
Snow, Julian
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Oswald, Thomas
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Owen, Will
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Padley, W. E.
Steele, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Pargiter, G. A.
Stones, William
Woof, Robert


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Swaln, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Sylvester, George



Pentland, Norman
Symonds, J. B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Howell and Mr. Lawson.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TO AND BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Galbraith: Mr. Galbraith I beg to move, in page 8, line 12, at the end to insert:
or by a sewerage or water authority in carrying out, or paying compensation in respect of, any operations for the diversion of a sewer or, as the case may be, a water main, being operations connected with the improvement or alteration of a watercourse and specified in a flood prevention scheme made by that local authority.
It may he convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in Clause 13, page 8, line 30, leave out from "incurred" to "in" in line 31.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): If that is convenient to the Committee, yes.

Mr. Galbraith: As I have already explained, in Standing Committee I undertook to look at the drafting of the Bill to see whether anything could be done to allow local authorities to carry out work on a sewer or water main to the extent that such work was necessary to prevent urban flooding.
I also said that I would not wish to exclude the possibility of co-operation between authorities, or different departments of the same authority, for that purpose. The Committee will recollect that the point arose because the definition of the word "watercourse" in Clause 2 (2) expressly excludes any sewer or water main.
I am afraid that it has not been found practicable to proceed by way of amending the definition of watercourse in the

Bill, because this would have the effect of giving a flood prevention authority power to carry out work on sewers or water mains itself and thus to encroach on the statutory functions of sewerage or water authorities, and we have dealt with that matter.
I believe, however, that we have achieved the desired result in that, where it is necessary to divert a sewer or water main which is causing an obstruction likely to cause urban flooding, it will be possible to include the work in a flood prevention scheme, and because of this to obtain grant on the expenditure even though the work is to be carried out by the sewerage or water authority.
I think that the most convenient way to achieve what is wanted is to give the flood prevention authority power to make contributions to the sewerage or water authority for works of this nature, provided that they are an essential part of the operation and are specified in the flood prevention scheme.
I know that hon. Gentlemen were equally concerned with the financial aspects of the matter. The Bill as originally drafted not only precluded the flood prevention authority from carrying out any work on a sewer or water main, but also expressly prohibited grant from being paid on any expenditure incurred in connection with a sewer.
I cannot think that that situation is likely to arise very often, but I appreciate that it might conceivably cause a local authority, faced with heavy expenditure, to think twice before moving a sewer or water main, and that it might thereby act as a brake on its flood prevention scheme.
The Amendment in Clause 13, page 8, line 30, puts the matter right. If a flood prevention authority ever finds itself faced with the sort of situation that we have in mind, it will be able to arrange with the sewerage or water authority to re-site the main and to reimburse that authority in the form of a contribution under Clause 12 and to claim grant on this expenditure.
This fully meets the undertaking that I gave in Committee, and I am glad that it has been possible to do so. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will feel that we have made a good job of this.

Mr. Ross: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the attention that he has paid to this matter. It must have caused him considerable trouble to decide how to fit it in.
I am not as happy as he is about having met the undertakings that we sought. In Committee upstairs he said:
… I agree that there may be a case for any necessary alteration in the location of the sewer or water main which is carried out by the local authority to be done as a flood prevention job under this Bill.
That is when there is a need for a diversion. He went on to say:
There may also be cases, though I would think they would be comparatively rare, where it might be convenient for a local authority to provide extra capacity to deal with the flooding in a new sewer which is needed in any case for the purposes of the Public Health Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 8th December, 1960, c. 55.]
The hon. Gentleman led us to believe that he appreciated two particular instances where, in relation to flood prevention, it would be desirable to have operations affecting sewers and water mains. The Amendment refers to
operations for the diversion of a sewer, or as the case may be, a water main, being operations
and so on.
9.0 p.m.
In other words, the hon. Gentleman has dealt only with the one specific case of diversion of a sewer or a water main and not with the question of the inadequacy of a sewer in relation to flood prevention. So, although he has done well, he has not done well enough. While we are grateful for what he has done, we would point out that where one is taking steps in relation to flood prevention, and it is obvious that in order to

obviate that flooding it will be necessary to spend some time and money on a new sewer, then specifically to omit that from one of the things to be done is somewhat illogical. I hope that, while the Under-Secretary of State appreciates that we are glad that he has done what he has, he realizes that we are still rather dissatisfied about this point.
Not only is his Amendment limited to the diversion of a sewer; it is limited to operations connected with the improvement or alteration of a watercourse. Why did the hon. Gentleman still further limit it? It may well be that, as it is empowered to do under Clause 2, a local authority is creating a new watercourse and the creation of that new watercourse might mean the diversion of a sewer or water main. According to this Amendment that would not be covered, because it is limited purely and simply to the words:
being operations connected with the improvement or alteration of a watercourse,
unless he is now going to tell us that "alteration" includes a new watercourse.
There is a ring of familiarity about the words
improvement or alteration of a watercourse".
We find them in Clause 2 (1, c) which refers to:
the improvement or alteration of any watercourse.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that the first thing we did today was to put in some words there to make it read:
the improvement, alteration or major reinstatement of any watercourse".
Does the hon. Member propose to include major reinstatements in this case as well? I think that that is absolutely essential. If he is to carry forward the phraseology of Clause 2 (1, c) into Clause 12 he should also include that.
There are two points on which we have not been met, one arising from an Amendment that he has made. I am sorry that the Lord Advocate is not here, but I would ask the Under-Secretary of State—on a point which was raised in discussion a little earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)—where this fits into the whole pattern of a flood prevention scheme. We have already had a definition of a flood prevention scheme in Clause 4. A flood prevention scheme


is a flood prevention operation other than maintenance, and this provision is for other than maintenance. To get a definition of the words, "flood prevention operation" we are sent back to Clause 2, which specifically says that flood prevention operations shall not include work done on a sewer or water main.
How is a local authority to be able to satisfy the requirements that we are now asked to specify in the Amendment, when it would appear from Clause 4 that the definition of a flood prevention scheme is limited to flood prevention operations that specifically exclude sewers and water mains? This is why we are being so insistent. The quite unnecessary ingenuity of the Scottish Office has led it into considerable difficulty. It has got round this, but has done so very clumsily and not without incurring a certain measure of legal doubt.
There is also the other aspect, of introducing new authorities. We have had a certain amount of discussion on that. Although the Government Amendment meets our point about sewers and water mains half way, it is really quite unsatisfactory. The Scots are not in the habit of looking a gift horse in the mouth. We subject it to a minute examination, and having done so on this occasion we find that, although it is wanting in certain respects, it is possible for us to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13. — (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 30, leave out from "incurred" to "in" in line 31—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Clause 2.—(POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORI- TIES.)

Amendment made: In page 1, line 20, leave out "clearing".—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

Clause 4.—(FLOOD PREVENTION SCHEMES.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, at the end to insert:
(5) A local authority before making a flood prevention scheme shall consult with any improvement committee functioning under section three of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1958, where any land situated in the improvement area administered by such a committee is contiguous to or forms part of the land affected by the proposed flood prevention scheme.
We are galloping through the Bill, as is customary with Scottish Members. One of our criticisms of the Government all along with regard to this Bill, the previous Bill and the Government's general attitude towards drainage is their lack of any idea of co-ordinating efforts to prevent and deal with flooding. The 1958 Measure made provision for a group of land owners to undertake work to prevent flooding and to form committees for the administration and maintenance of their schemes. They might, therefore, be involved in flood prevention work on land that is either contiguous to or which forms part of the land considered by the local authority for inclusion in its own scheme.
It does not require a great deal of thought, nor does it need a great deal of knowledge of how these things are done to appreciate that it is desirable that there should be some co-operation between the two parties. We do no want a local authority to take over work that should be done by the land owners. We know that the Government are always very courteous and kind to the land owners, and would like to do all sorts of things for them that they probably would not do for other sections of the community, but I am sure that in this case we do not want a local authority operating a scheme that overlaps one operated by a group of land owners.
That is the simple case. I should have thought that in order to prevent overlapping and any waste of public money—and that should appeal to the Government—it is desirable that there should be consultation between the two bodies in an effort to co-ordinate what is being done with what is proposed to be done. That is what this Amendment seeks to achieve. The Clause as it stands makes it obligatory on a local authority to consult other local authorities when the circumstances are somewhat similar. We on


this side think that there should be the same consultation with an improvement committee functioning under the 1958 Act.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has sounded, as he usually does, a very persuasive and convincing note. I recognise that, in some ways, this Amendment seems reasonable and appears to make a constructive approach to close co-operation between the parties concerned with carrying out flood prevention and land drainage schemes. The hon. Gentleman has clearly stated what the result of this Amendment would be.
I agree in general principle that when there is any relation between a land drainage and a flood prevention scheme, there should be some consultation. In fact, if there were consultation between the people who are separately contemplating these schemes there might result, with mutual advantage, a joint scheme. I do not, however, think that consultation would be stimulated by inserting those words. The fact is that a requirement to consult in particular circumstances may actually discourage consultation where the circumstances do not arise.
If one puts in a requirement to consult in certain circumstances, the feeling is that, when what has been specified has been done, all the other obligations have been fulfilled and there is no need to do more. Not every land drainage scheme has a committee already associated with it, and by the time the committee has been appointed the scheme has been published and settled, and the result of such a requirement may be considerable delay and less prospect of collaboration.
It is not only land drainage interests that are involved here; one can think of a good many other interests, especially those mentioned in paragraph 3 (1) of the Second Schedule. A statutory obligation to consult all those bodies at the preliminary stage might give rise to serious and unnecessary delays. However, the Second Schedule does require that when a scheme has been prepared a copy must be served on every such body by the authority preparing it. This gives those bodies the right to lodge objections

and, if necessary, pursue them at a public inquiry. In actual practice, it means that they approach the authority promoting the scheme in order to seek adjustment of any points which are causing them concern.
I therefore suggest to the House that the substance of what the Amendment seeks to secure is already incorporated in the Bill and that to write in what the Amendment suggests would unduly complicate the whole proceedings. It might lead to just the kind of delays which we are always trying to avoid in matters of this kind. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not think it necessary to pursue the Amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I have listened with very great care to what the right hon. Gentleman said. A land drainage scheme is the sort of thing which normally causes flooding. The whole point of a land drainage scheme is to take water from the land a little more quickly than it has been taken hitherto. We find that a great deal of flooding in main water courses is occasioned by the improved drainage that has been effected in recent years.
In the circumstances, if a land drainage scheme is being carried through under the provisions of the 1958 Act and that scheme is contiguous to a small burgh through which the river runs and the small burgh has experienced flooding such as that experienced in Wigtownshire some months ago, the flood prevention authority would wish to consult the improvement committee because both schemes will attract money which we in Parliament provide under these two separate Measures. If there is a scheme in an agricultural area contiguous to a small burgh which has been causing flooding, it is concerned to have a flood prevention scheme made under this Bill. Before the flood prevention scheme is proceeded with we should require that there is consultation with the improvement committee. If the Secretary of State says that the objection to the Amendment is that there will not be an improvement committee in all cases, we should look at the drafting again, but surely there can be no objection to the principle.

Sir James Duncan: What is the point of consulting?

Mr. Fraser: The Secretary of State thought that there would be great advantage in consulting, but both schemes are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. If as a result of consultation it were found that the two schemes were, if not one and the same, so closely related that they should be given effect to simultaneously instead of having the landward scheme under the 1958 Act considered by one Department of the Secretary of State's Office at St. Andrews House and the other scheme going through a small burgh being considered by another Department at St. Andrews House—

Sir J. Duncan: It is functioning already.

Mr. Fraser: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman. The land drainage scheme is in operation and that is for agricultural land. If the urban land has previously suffered flooding and the council of a small burgh—or a large burgh—seeks to initiate a scheme under this Bill, it has to submit the scheme to the Secretary of State for approval.
In the Amendment we seek to say that persons promoting a scheme under the Bill to be submitted to the Secretary of State should consult those who have been given approval for another scheme, the success of which will increase the flooding. Surely the authority submitting a scheme under the Bill to the Secretary of State for his approval should be fully conversant with what the other authority is doing, as should the Secretary of State's Department, which is considering the scheme under the Bill. As a result of these consultations it would be possible to see whether it was sufficient to provide works which would counter the kind of flooding which had taken place in the past or whether it was necessary to add some further works to take care of the additional water which would be a consequence of the scheme made under the 1958 Act.
This makes so much sense, and to fail to do it would make so much nonsense, that for the Secretary of State to allow the Bill to go through, dealing with flooding, without seeing that his own Department, in considering a scheme, will take fully into account any additional flooding which will be occasioned by a scheme under the 1958 Act, is quite

beyond my comprehension. In view of all the consultations which have to take place between different authorities from time to time, there can be no more sensible requirement than to have consultations in these circumstances.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree to an Amendment to call the attention of the authority promoting the scheme under the Bill to the desirability of having these consultations. The drafting of our Amendment may not be as sound as if it had been done by the Parliamentary draftsmen or the Lord Advocate, but if the principle is sound I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it and incorporate it in the Bill.

Sir J. Duncan: I intervene only because I twice interrupted the hon. Member and I wish to explain my interruptions. he started by saying that it is possible that as a result of a scheme under the 1958 Act flooding will be increased upstream, and he suggests that there should be consultation, in connection with the flood prevention scheme, with people downstream. But the Amendment implies that the improvement committee already exists, because the word is "functioning". It is of no interest to them. Their only interest is to get rid of the water in their area, and the point of consultation does not arise. There might be a point if there were a question of the improvement committee being set up simultaneously in the agricultural land with the flood prevention scheme in the urban land, but that is not suggested by the wording of the Amendment.
Indeed, all this consultation has been contemplated in the Bill and in my right hon. Friend's speech. There is provision in the Second Schedule to deal with this sort of thing. Under paragraph 3 all these people have opportunities of being consulted. Copies of the draft Order have to be made. Under paragraph 2 everybody has an opportunity of raising objections. In those cases there is provision for consultation, but in the other cases a proposal just for consultation and not for action seems rather futile. For those reasons I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Amendment would add nothing useful to the Bill and would be of no benefit in producing results from the Bill.

Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) shed much light on the subject and talked a great deal of common sense in stating our reasons for tabling the Amendment. I want briefly to advance one or two more reasons. I said in Committee that I was rather perturbed at certain implications of what was intended in connection with the presentation of schemes and, even more so, in connection with maintenance.
Clause 2 (2, b) says that the expression "watercourse" includes
any ditch, drain, cut, canal, culvert, sluice or passage carrying or designed to carry water, together with the walls, pipes or other works containing or intended to contain the same.
Ditches do not make themselves, and conditions may arise under which there has been a drainage improvement committee or a drainage scheme which has attracted grant from the Government. The local authority is now being called upon to undertake maintenance by clearing all drains and ditches. The people who own them and whose land the drains and ditches are making more fertile will be relieved of the burden of maintaining something for which they have received a grant.
I mentioned this in Committee. I had hoped that the Joint Under-Secretary would pay some regard to it and try to ensure that money is not squandered. If within the ambit of a scheme presented by a local authority there is an improvement committee or a drainage grant has been received by the land-owning interests, an attempt such as the Amendment makes should be made to ensure that suitable arrangements can be arrived at about maintenance of the ditches and culverts. We are sincerely trying to avoid a clash in connection with the ancillary drainage provisions if there is a conflict of interest between the two authorities and no consultation.

Mr. Steele: I was encouraged by the opening remarks of the Secretary of State. He led us to believe that the purpose behind the Amendment was a useful one and that he sympathised with it and recognised that consultations between the various bodies should take place and that it would be wise that each should know what the other was doing.
He went on to pour cold water on the idea, because he said that it was not a good thing to provide in a Statute that consultations should take place. He said—I understand and appreciate the point—that once a Statute provides that a certain thing should be done it can be argued that other things which are not mentioned should not be done. During the passage of another Bill concerned with the same principle hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite felt that it was a great victory when they wrote into the Statute that an English Minister had to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland. They thought that by getting this they had in fact achieved something.
9.30 p.m.
I can see that the Secretary of State recalls the incident. We said at the time that it was making nonsense of legislation when we had to put into a statute that two Ministers of a Government should consult with each other. I must confess that, although the Secretary of State for Scotland was sympathetic, the speech of the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) convinced me that an Amendment of this kind was essential. He said that the attitude of the land drainage improvement body was, "We will get on with our job. We are all right, Jack, never mind about the others".
He went on to tell us that if we turned to the Second Schedule we would see that provision was made for consultation. But that is not so. Provision is not made there for consultation. Provision is made for the Secretary of State for Scotland to publish a scheme and, if any one objects to it, he can enter his objections. The Land Drainage Board in this case is not objecting to the scheme. According to the hon. Member for South Angus, "It is all right and not in the least bit worried about it".
It is true that the improvement of land drainage means that more water will flow into the river more quickly and will proceed down the river more quickly. If, in fact, a local authority is making provision under a scheme to ensure that urban land is not flooded and goes to all the trouble of putting up a scheme to the Secretary of State for Scotland and having it published, and then, at that stage—to take the best from the speech of the hon. Member for South


Angus—it finds that the Improvement Committee under the 1950 Act is in fact going ahead with another improvement, then, of course, the scheme which the local authority is putting forward is not sufficient and would obviously have to be looked at again. It is clear that the two things go together.
Surely it is only right and proper that a local authority should consult with this other body so that it can see what is happening and ask that body at that stage what further proposals it may have so as to avoid any difficulty in preparing a scheme. That seems to me to be sensible. If the Improvement Committee takes the view of the hon. Member for South Angus that, "We are all right, Jack, never mind anyone else", then that is, quite frankly, an indication that consultation is more essential than ever.
I hope that the Secretary of State will reject the speech of his hon. Friend. He was, in his speech, much more sympathetic. I am quite sure that he will be able to tell us, now that the hon. Member for South Angus has shown that it is necessary to have an Amendment of this kind, that he will be prepared, if not to accept it in its present form, at least to agree that in another place a suitable Amendment will be put forward.

Mr. Maclay: rose—

Mr. Ross: I was hoping to try to dissuade the Secretary of State from saying what he was about to say. I know him only too well. He started by paying a compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and said how persuasive he is. I should like to tell the Secretary of State what I think of his speech. It was far from persuasive. "Feckless" is probably a more suitable Scottish description of his speech.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there should be such consultation, but he then said there would be a great danger, and that if we put into the Bill a requirement for consultation it would just mean that a local authority would consult the improvement committee and nobody else. The trouble with the Secretary of State is that he has just arrived at this Bill. I ask him to look at subsection (4) which says:

A local authority, before making a flood prevention scheme relating to operations on land in the area of another local authority, shall consult with that other local authority.
What is that subsection doing there if there are all these terrible consequences to be expected from consultation? The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said that consultation is futile. If he believes that it is futile, he should do his Parliamentary duty and table an Amendment to remove this provision for consultation.
There are to be two ways of dealing with flooding. This is not our idea. This is the brilliant concept of the Secretary of State, that flooding can be divided into flooding on agricultural land and flooding on non-agricultural land. We have one Measure dealing with flooding on agricultural land and another dealing with flooding on urban land. Of course, the waters which overflow the banks know all about this and divide themselves carefully into one or the other. What we want are comprehensive works for the prevention of flooding. Flooding is flooding, whether it is in town or in country. We have the 1958 Act and now we are presented with this Bill. In spite of that, we say "Let us make the best of this bad job."
Not long ago I asked a Question about the number of schemes carried out under the 1958 Act. At that time three such schemes had been carried out and forty-five other cases were under consideration. So here we have this problem, and a number of improvement committees are to be set up. Surely where flood prevention operations have to be carried out in one area, it is only sensible for the bodies which are administering these operations to act in co-operation and consultation. That is all we ask.
We are trying honestly and sincerely to prevent flooding, and the right hon. Gentleman refuses to give us any comprehensive plan in relation to flood prevention. So we say "Let us make the best of this". The hon. Member for South Angus talks about all sorts of difficulties which might arise. He says that there might not be an improvement committee in the area, and that, even if there were, they would need both circumstances to arise at the same time. Does he not appreciate that the problem is the same?
Here is an authority which has had the right from the Secretary of State to go ahead and carry out similar operations in the same area. If it could do nothing else, it might possibly give advice and the benefit of its experience of snags that might arise in operations in that area. I cannot see what is to be lost by accepting the Amendment. It is not an Amendment in the sense that it would destroy anything that the Government have in the Bill. It is an addition to, and it strengthens and makes more effective what the Government themselves propose.
I hope that the Secretary of State, having read this part of the Bill, will recognise the futility of his first arguments and that, having done that and listened to the persuasive speeches of my hon. Friends, he will at least suggest that he will think about the matter again. This is not the last word on the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman should not close his mind to such useful co-operation.

Mr. Maclay: I was getting worried that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) did not think that the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had been as persuasive as I thought it, but he ended up by putting the matter right.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock based his argument a little on the fact that he did not know whether I recollected what was in the Bill. I have refreshed my memory on the subsection with which we are dealing. I would remind the hon. Member that the words are:
A local authority, before making a flood prevention scheme relating to operations on land in the area of another local authority, shall consult with that other local authority.
Confident as I am of the good relationships that exist between local authorities in Scotland, I think that it would be going a little far if one made it possible for one local authority to go a long way in thinking up a scheme which would be carried out on the land of another local authority without consulting that body. Surely this is elementary reasonableness.
It is another matter when we come to consider the substance of the Amend-

ment. I am not in any disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) who put a perfectly good argument. It is tempting, Mr. Speaker, to relieve you of listening to a certain amount of argument which may seem to show that there is little between us; if I thought that the Amendment could be accepted without making the operation of the Bill unnecessarily more difficult, I would accept it. I am convinced, however, that the Amendment is unnecessary and that the purpose of hon. Members opposite will not be achieved by it.
There is some advantage in being an omnibus Minister, if that is what I am, in that I am responsible for both agriculture and health in Scotland. It is clear that there is no risk of a scheme getting going in one Department and another in another Department without their being brought together by administrative means. It is putting unnecessary obstacles in the way if we lay down in a Statute that there must be consultation with committees, none of which even exist at present, although there may be some in the future.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is it not a fact that schemes under the 1958 Act are considered by the Department of Agriculture, whereas schemes under this Bill will be considered by the Department of Health?

Mr. Maclay: I pointed out that I am an omnibus Minister. All these things come to me, much to my sorrow at times—though at times it is a convenience. I assure hon. Members that in principle everything that happens in my Departments is known by me. Each of the two Departments is bound to know what is going on in the other, and by administrative means we can achieve our purpose.
It is always difficult to get things just right for hon. Members opposite. Earlier this evening the hon. Member for Kilmarnock propounded the great principle, which he said always guided him and which sounded very impressive, that his approach to legislation was never to put a word in when one could take some words out. I would say to him that another good principle is never to put conditions in a Bill when one can leave them out without damaging the


Bill and particularly when those conditions make that Bill more difficult to work.
9.45 p.m.
I think the House would be extremely ill-advised to risk holding up a procedure which can work perfectly well without the Amendment when the Amendment would make it a great deal more difficult to work. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6.—(BYELAWS.)

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, to leave out from "may" to the end of line 14 and to insert:
for the purpose of preventing the obstruction of any particular watercourse in their area so as to be likely to cause the flooding of land, other than agricultural land, whether in their area or not, make byelaws regulating or prohibiting the deposit of rubbish or other material in or near the watercourse".
During the Committee stage, hon. Gentlemen opposite criticised the drafting of Clause 6 (1) on the ground that reference to the manner in which rubbish was deposited in a watercourse appeared to be a reference to the physical manipulation of the rubbish into the watercourse rather than the effect which the depositing of the rubbish would have on the watercourse. I agree that there may be something in this, and the Amendment, therefore, seeks to improve the drafting of the Clause to remove any ambiguity on that score.
At the same time, the Amendment covers a very real type of case, which we discussed in Committee, where rubbish is deposited on a dump near a watercourse and is likely in time to spill over and get washed into the stream, thereby causing an obstruction, and possibly causing flooding further down.
Hon. Gentlemen will recollect also that I undertook during the Committee stage to consider whether the Clause might be redrafted to meet the point of an Amendment by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who suggested that the power to make byelaws might be extended to cover the prevention of any interference with the normal flow of a watercourse. I said then that I was not able to accept the Amendment as it was worded although I had a good deal of sympathy with its

object. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will now feel that in introducing into the Clause a reference to the prevention of obstructions in a watercourse I have gone some way to meet him. I believe that the Clause, as amended, will give local authorities all the powers they need in relation to the making of byelaws having regard to the permissive nature of the whole Bill, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that we have gone as far as we can to meet them.

Mr. A. Woodburn: During the Committee stage I spoke on the first point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for trying to meet me.
However, on reading the Amendment, I still feel a little puzzled about the word "deposit". The impression given to me by "deposit" is that it is the act of somebody depositing something in a stream. I suggested earlier that obstruction might result from neglect. Suppose there is in the middle of Kilmarnock a wall which the water undermines and the owner of the wall does not keep it in good order and the wall collapses into the stream. I am puzzled as to whether the person "deposits" the wall in the stream or whether the wall just falls in. Flooding might be caused equally by that person's neglect.
What strikes me about the whole of this is that neglect is not really covered by the Bill, and that more damage might be caused by a person's neglect than by any incidental depositing of rubbish in a stream. I have held out the possibility of a wall collapsing, but there are a number of other possibilities. I should be glad if the Joint Under-Secretary or the Lord Advocate could make clear what "deposit" means. Is it a conscious act on the part of someone, an act which he has actually committed, or does "deposit" include the results of neglect where the person ought to have prevented the incident from happening by keeping the wall, the bridge or whatever it might be in order.

Mr. Dempsey: I am grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for coming part of the way as far as obstruction is concerned, but he will recall that during the Committee stage I also referred to dumping. He should have


considered dumping because, as I read the Amendment, byelaws to cover dumping are governed by the words
… so as to be likely to cause the flooding of land …
In other words, there will be no byelaws to cover the situation in which dumping takes place excessively in many rivers, but still does not reach the stage of actually causing a flood.
It may be argued that we are dealing with flooding only and can deal with dumping only when it reaches the stage at which flooding takes place, but the mere fact that dumping can, at some stage, contribute to flooding should lead to its prohibition from our rivers. I know a place in Lanarkshire where the width of the river has narrowed because of dumping, and at a certain stage flooding is bound to take place. The mere fact that dumping can be a contributory element in flooding should have been ample reason for the Secretary of State to consider eliminating it altogether.
I believe that it is difficult to apply a byelaw dealing with flooding arising out of dumping. One must ask the questions: at what stage does flooding take place, and what degree of dumping is necessary before flooding occurs? This can create a tremendous amount of difficulty in the implementation of effective byelaws.
The mere fact that we are to allow dumping to take place in our rivers to a certain degree—dumping which, enormous as it is in many respects, has not actually sparked off flooding—is a weakness in the Amendment. I was hoping that the Government would correct that indecision.
Apart from many other factors, we all know that dumping is a great menace to children, who naturally gravitate towards water in their play. I thought that we could have taken advantage of this legislation to stop dumping in our rivers on a large scale and by large businesses—for it is done not by men with wheelbarrows but by large scale concerns. I hoped that, in view of the charitable outlook the Under-Secretary of State took during our discussions, we would have an Amendment to prohibit dumping.
I am appreciative of the distance which he has already travelled towards

our point of view, and I am grateful for it, but I would have preferred him to be definite about river dumping and to have included a provision prohibiting it entirely.

Mr. Steele: The operative words in the Amendment are
… be likely to cause the flooding of land …
There might be some doubt about what those words mean. This can be decided only in the courts, but it would be useful to hear what the Lord Advocate has to say about the matter. I want to consider those words and also the words
… in or near the watercourse.
The serious flooding in part of my constituency was caused because sawdust from a sawmill was piled beside a water course. At that stage, of course, it did not cause flooding, but when we had a storm and a heavy rainfall, water came down the stream and gradually seeped away the sawdust and carried it down the stream to a small bridge where it blocked the stream so that the water piled up and two or three houses were flooded.
That was something about which nobody could do anything. The local authority had no power and the owners of the flooded property took what action they could, but although they tried to keep the stream clear at their own expense, the owner of the sawmill was not prepared to take any action. If the intepretation of this provision suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) is correct, there is not yet a solution to this problem. However, if the Lord Advocate is certain that the words
be likely to cause the flooding of land
would cover a case of this kind, then my constituents will be very happy.

The Lord Advocate: The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) suspected that "depositing" meant "voluntarily depositing". I am fairly certain that if a person allowed his wall to get into a state of neglect with the result that stones fell into a river, that would not be depositing within the terms of the Bill. Apart from that, there still remain common law rights, and, if anybody is injured, there would be a common law remedy outside the Bill.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) wanted to make any depositing an offence, whether it was voluntary or involuntary. I was in sympathy with some things he said, but it has to be remembered that this is a Bill to enable councils to take measures for the prevention or mitigation of flooding, and, even if we had drafted an Amendment to meet his argument, I doubt whether it would be in order. However, I will take note of his comments.
He and his hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) asked what was meant by "likely to cause flooding". The example given by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) is typical of the type of case which would be covered. As it turned out, the depositing of sawdust caused flooding, and anyone knowing the weather of Dunbartonshire would have been able to say that it was likely to cause flooding, and so the case would have been covered.
I was also asked whether the phrase "in or near" was sufficient to cover the matter when the depositing was some distance from the watercourse. It would be impossible and extremely undesirable to lay down limits. For instance, if we laid down a distance of 100 yards, that might cover cases which ought not to be covered and might not cover cases which ought to be included. However, when the depositing is likely to cause, and in fact does cause, flooding, as happened in the example, and when it is near enough to cause the flooding, it would clearly be covered by the byelaws which can be made.

Mr. Ross: I am interested in the language of the Lord Advocate and, indeed, of the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to this. They may be saying "likely to cause flooding" but that is not what the Amendment says. That is the language of the Bill as originally drafted.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Proceedings on the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bill and the Agricultural Research etc. (Pensions) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. I (Sittings of the House)—[Mr. Maclay.]

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ross: The Lord Advocate will appreciate that in trying to meet the objections raised to the original language the words in the Amendment make the position much more difficult. Originally, there was power to make bye-laws for the purpose of preventing flooding. It was relatively easy to decide whether something would cause flooding. The words now proposed will make it much more difficult for a local authority to decide something about which it must satisfy the Secretary of State for Scotland, because the Amendment says:
for the purpose of preventing the obstruction of any particular watercourse in their area so as to he likely to cause the flooding of land, other than agricultural land, whether in their area or not … 
How on earth will anyone be able to decide a thing like that with certainty? How can it be justified? How can we ask a local authority to make bye-laws to cover only the flooding of non-agricultural land? This is the height of stupidity to which we have been reduced by this constant insistence on nonagricultural land.
I hope that the Lord Advocate, with the leave of the House, will explain why it was thought desirable to introduce this for the first time in the Amendment. Our original difficulty was that of being able to prohibit the dumping and depositing of rubbish, because there was no provision to deal with that. Dumping was not an offence. Depositing also was not an offence. It was "depositing in such a manner", and so on, that caused considerable difficulties to any local authority which tried to prosecute people under that provision. I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland will now find it even more difficult to decide whether the obstruction of any particular watercourse in any area by this dumping would be likely to cause flooding of land—not the flooding of agricultural land, but just land which is other than agricultural land.
While we are satisfied that the Government have tried to get round our original difficulties by making the sanctions which local authorities can apply much more effective, they have spoiled their efforts by dragging in this reference to land


other than agricultural land. They have not only spoiled their efforts, but have made this quite nugatory.
I do not know whether we are grateful for this. I do not think that the Lord Advocate is grateful for the speech that I am making, but I hope that he will appreciate that there is a difficulty here and will promise to think about it again.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am unhappy about the Amendment for another reason, or perhaps I should say an extension of one of the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The subsection will now read:
Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority may for the purpose of preventing the obstruction of any particular watercourse in their area …"—
the watercourse that might be obstructed has to be in their area—
so as to be likely to cause the flooding of land, other than agricultural land, whether in their area or not, make byelaws regulating or prohibiting the deposit of rubbish or other material in or near the watercourse.
I should like to know what the Government have in mind. One got the impression that in their original draft they envisaged the local authority making byelaws for the prevention of flooding in its own area, but under this alternative wording which the Secretary of State has put before us a local authority making byelaws for regulating or prohibiting the deposit of rubbish or other material in a watercourse in its area might do so for the purpose of preventing flooding of some urban land in the area of another local authority.
I can envisage circumstances in which it might be desirable to do that, but we have not had any indication of what the Government have in mind. As a matter of fact, they resisted an Amendment a little earlier where we wanted consultation between the urban authority whose land might be flooded and the other authority which was causing the flooding. That has been resisted as being quite unnecessary, but it seems to be necessary to put in the Bill a byelaw-making power for one authority to regulate the depositing of material in or near a watercourse in its area to prevent flooding of land in the area of another local authority. In what circumstances does the right hon. and learned Gentleman envisage a local authority taking

steps to make such byelaws for the protection of the area of another authority?

The Lord Advocate: If, by leave, I may reply, the circumstances I envisage are cases where local authorities are cooperating. One has the case of flooding occurring further downstream in the area of another local authority and, as a matter of neighbourliness, the upstream local authority under these provisions could make byelaws to prevent the deposit of this, that and the other material in the watercourse as it passes through its area to prevent flooding at a point further downstream. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) remembers, and as I think he will accept, in the Clause as it stands there is the broad principle that a local authority normally can make byelaws only in regard to any act done within its area. We allow the local authorities to pass byelaws to prevent something happening in their area even if it is a matter which affects a local authority or an urban district further downstream. I think that the hon. Member will agree that that is reasonable.

Mr. T. Fraser: It is precisely because I think that it is so necessary that I wanted there to be consultation with the people upstream who will be causing the flooding. That is why we suggested the earlier Amendment.

The Lord Advocate: That was not in relation to one local authority and another but in relation to a local authority and an improvement committee under a land drainage scheme. There is a little difference.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked why the provision was limited to land other than agricultural land.

Mr. Ross: I am referring to flooding that will take place at some future time. The provision affects only the flooding of non-agricultural land.

The Lord Advocate: The Bill deals only with the prevention and mitigation of flooding of non-agricultural land, as is seen from the Long Title. Even if we had left the Clause as it stands, the provision would have been read as being concerned with flooding within the scope of the Bill. We have merely made it


clear that only non-agricultural land is affected.

Mr. Fraser: The Lord Advocate has referred to the Long Title, which enables local authorities
to take measures for the prevention or mitigation of flooding of non-agricultural land in their areas.
The Amendment would seem to go beyond the provisions of the Long Title.

The Lord Advocate: In that case we are fortunate in having the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11.—(COMPENSATION.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 7, line 20, to leave out from the first "the" to the first "the" in line 23 and to insert:
carrying out of any flood prevention operations".
It might be convenient if this and the following Amendment, in line 23, were taken together, because they are closely connected. The two Amendments are designed to meet certain criticisms made in Committee in regard to the continuing liability of local authorities if, having carried out a flood prevention scheme and then failed to maintain it, damage occurs further down the river. The object of the two Amendments, taken together, is to provide that if the local authority has carried out these operations it will not be liable for any omission to maintain thereafter. It will be liable for any omission during the carrying out of the work, if that omission should cause damage. That is why the word "omission" is left in line 28.
On the assumption that the two Amendments are carried, a local authority is clear in two years from that date. If, through omission, there is a crumbling of a dam which causes damage further down the river, liability does not arise.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 23, leave out "right was exercised" and insert "operations were carried out".—[The Lord Advocate.]

10.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 7, line 39, at the end to insert:
or ten years from the completion of the flood prevention operations, whichever is the earlier

I do not think I need to go into this Amendment in detail. It gives effect to an undertaking, and I think that everybody is happy about it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14.—(CROWN RIGHTS.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 9, line 1, at the beginning to insert:
Before carrying out any flood prevention operations or making a flood prevention scheme".
I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we also took the Amendment in the same page and line—leave out from "land" to end of line 4 and insert:
the local authority shall consult with the appropriate authority in relation to such land".
They both cover the same point.
It might, perhaps, be very much simpler if I were first to read the Clause as it now stands, and then give the amended version. The present wording of subsection (1) is:
In relation to any Crown land nothing in this Act, or in any scheme made under this Act, shall (except so far as the appropriate authority consents) affect prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege or exemption of the Crown.
If these Amendments are accepted the subsection will read:
Before carrying out any flood prevention operations or making a flood prevention scheme in relation to any Crown land the local authority shall consult with the appropriate authority in relation to such land.
I think that it is about time that we dragged ourselves into the twentieth century—and into the second part of the twentieth century—in relation to these Crown lands, Departments of Government and the rest. We simply suggest that where a beneficial and desirable scheme for the prevention of flooding in relation to non-agricultural land is required, all that should be legislatively needed is consultation between the local authority and the appropriate authority—and, of course, that "appropriate authority" is defined later in the Clause. When what is desired is something that is to be for the benefit 'of everyone within the area, all this reference to estate, right, power, privilege, exemption of the Crown and the like is quite anachronistic, and we should face that fact.

The Lord Advocate: We had some discussion of this point in the Standing Committee, and if I did not undertake to look at it I certainly have done, because these Crown exemption Clauses are rather a headache. We have to decide when they should go in and when they should not go in.
The effect of these Amendments, if they were accepted, would be that a local authority would have to consult the Government Department—because that is what it comes to—before carrying out flood prevention work, but would not need to obtain the Department's consent. That could cause difficulties, not only in regard, for example, to security matters, but, as was mentioned in the Standing Committee, there might be Post Office cable works underneath the land that was to be dammed—

Mr. Willis: That is covered in the Schedule.

The Lord Advocate: At any rate, there are these cases of difficulty in regard to Government Departments whose land might be affected, although it is quite true, as was suggested during the Committee stage, that the Secretary of State could refuse his approval of a flood prevention scheme if he thought that it was prejudicial to a particular Government Department.
Quite apart from that, there are these cases where a local authority can do its, as it were, non-subsidised work—

Mr. Willis: Maintenance.

The Lord Advocate: Maintenance, yes. By another Clause, local authorities are empowered to enter on land to carry out maintenance work and if these Amendments were accepted they would be entitled, apart from consulting the Department concerned, to go on to War Department land, for example, or places where there are atomic stations, and so on, when doing anything of that nature. If the authority said no, it could still go on, with the obvious prejudice which might then arise. Although the Secretary of State would have to approve flood prevention schemes, he would be powerless to intervene in that case and the local authority could exercise powers of entry and the like. For that reason, I suggest the Amendment should not be accepted.

Mr. Willis: I am very disappointed with the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. A characteristic of all the speeches we get from the Government is a general distrust of the integrity, honesty and desire to serve their country of local authorities. In a democracy such as ours, the Government ought to treat responsible elected authorities of the people in a rather more dignified manner. All this authoritarian control of these men does not produce the best type of representative on local authorities. We are constantly being told that we cannot get people of the right type to serve on them. One of the reasons is that the Government insist on treating them like schoolchildren and not like adult men and women when probably they have spent many years in local authority work developing a great sense of responsibility and are as conscious of the needs of the community as anyone.
We must also remember that Government Departments do not always act very reasonably. They can be exceedingly awkward. They dig in their toes over all sorts of things. The tuppenny ha'penny empire built up by some wee person is challenged by what a local authority wants to do. Clad in a brief authority, the individual stops the local authority doing it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) sits mumbling on his seat. When he made a contribution to the debate it was to tell us how selfish he was. We all have examples of Government Departments doing absurd things. We know how difficult it is at times to get them to undo those things or to persuade the Minister to overturn what the department is doing. That is particularly true of the Service Departments, which are exceedingly difficult to deal with on questions of land.
In view of the growth of Government Departments and of the passage of control of land into their hands, it is time we struck a blow for democracy. We do not expect the Government to do that, but there is no reason why the House should not carry out its historic rights and strike an occasional blow for democracy. In view of the increasing growth of Crown land, we ought to bring this practice out of the seventeenth century into the twentieth century. Local


authorities contain men with a large amount of skill who are dedicated to serving the public free of charge. These people have spent their lives in it, voluntarily.
But the Government say that they cannot be trusted to consult Government Departments and to arrive at sensible decisions. The right hon. Gentleman said, "We cannot trust local authority representatives to approach a Government Department intelligently and to recognise the wider interests of the State if they are in conflict with the interests of the locality".

Mr. Ross: He also said, "We cannot trust the sheriff", because application has to be made to the sheriff in relation to powers of entry, and surely he would pay attention to the wider interests.

The Lord Advocate: Application to the sheriff arises only in the case of an emergency entry.

Mr. Willis: In dealing with some of the Service Departments it is possible that there might have to be an emergency entry. I can visualise that happening, in which case the sheriff would be called in. We expect that from certain Government Departments. We object to the constant emphasis on the fact that local authority representatives are not to be trusted with any job. The right hon. Gentleman surely knows about the composition of local authorities and knows presumably many members of local authorities—or I wonder whether he does.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is in danger of repetition on a point considerably outside the Amendment. We understand that he is urging that members of local authorities are responsible and reputable persons. We have understood that point.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for stemming the flow of eloquence, and I apologise for coming back to where I started.
This is a frightening Clause, and local authority representatives do not like to see it in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman ought to do as he promised in Committee—to give more thought to it and to see what can be done to diminish the need for this type of Clause

in Bills, if not on this occasion certainly in the future.

Mr. Dempsey: I, too, ask the Minister to have another look at this Clause. I come from local authority service and I know that the words
right, power, privilege or exemption of the Crown
create almost a feeling of tyranny in the hearts and minds of those who are custodians of the rights of the local community. We talk about prejudicing these interests, but I ask the Minister to explain the Government's attitude if these interests prejudice the development of a local authority's efforts. That is a crucial challenge. It is obvious that these words must be very ancient, probably dating back to a time when there were very few Crown lands which interfered with the basic social services of this country. But I know from my own experience of cases in which the social services have been prejudiced because of the architects of this Clause and those who sought to enforce its provisions. Even today there are certain major social services which are most costly than they would be if these words were removed. I can give the right hon. Gentleman chapter and verse for that allegation.
The very least we can do is not to give these interests absolute power over the development of community wellbeing. It is reasonable to suggest that the other partner in the development of a fuller life should be allowed the initiative in this case of consulting these interests and of endeavouring to resolve differences and to remove conflicts with a view to ensuring that all concerned work in a measure of sanity rather than in the tyranny which I have found from time to time under the application of these principles.
10.30 p.m.
On more than one occasion in my capacity as a member of a local authority, I have raised issues such as that of the erection of local schools only to meet the untouchable and unmentionable interests of Crown land and estates. One is almost prevented from even looking at them. That is the construction placed on a provision such as this. It inspires almost a tyrannical attitude in the preservation of these places in the United Kingdom.
I appeal to the Secretary of State to look again at this matter. I am not endeavouring to be difficult or in any way obstreperous. All I wish to do is to convey the experience of one of the major local authorities in Scotland in trying to deal with the untouchables who represent Crown land and estates, who have vested powers to prevent the development of land which lies idle and is not even used for the grazing of sheep because of the power of words similar to those in this Clause.
I ask the Secretary of State to realise that it is a serious business for legislators to interpret these words to mean that the full life of a community cannot be developed simply because it would mean using Crown land and estates. I am sure that it was not the Government's intention that a construction of that nature should be put on these words by those who have been chosen to enforce legislation.
I believe that the words of the Amendment could have a beneficial effect on the Clause and that if they were accepted there would be no abuse by the local authorities who are responsible to the Secretary of State and to the electorate for their conduct. People of that kind are very jealous of the public purse, and in that respect they would not abuse any power or confidence vested in them by means of the Amendment.
I ask that the near-intolerance which the existing words inspire should be removed. If the Amendment is accepted it will be a first step in the right direction and it will help to soften the wind of suspicion which has developed among local authorities against the Government, the Secretary of State and his colleagues because of the imposition of such words as are contained in the ante-deluvian phraseology of this part of the Bill.
If this were done we could look forward to even greater co-operation and a better understanding between those who labour for nothing on local authorities and the legislators here responsible for the laws of the land. I often feel that the Secretary of State and Ministers generally are inclined to forget that there are men and women members of major local authorities who give the better part of their lives, without salary, in the

service of their fellow-men. It is our duty to encourage them. We seek in the Amendment to show that not only have we confidence in the ability of local authorities but that we know that their members are men and women of integrity whose only ambition is to work with the Government If their ambition is to work with the Government for the betterment of the community, let the Government work with them, and they can do it by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser: I agree with my hon. Friend that for the Government to accept the Amendment would be a step in the right direction, but if right hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to take all the steps in the right direction that are desirable they would take the whole Clause out of the Bill.
The Amendment seeks to delete the words:
nothing in this Act, or in any scheme made under this Act, shall (except so far as the appropriate authority consents) affect prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege or exemption of the Crown.
Do those words mean that the local authority cannot make byelaws for the prevention or mitigation of flooding in respect of a stream within Crown land except with the consent of the appropriate authority? Take the case of the deposit of sawdust—referred to by the Lord Advocate—by the Forestry Commission on Crown land into a stream, an action which the local authority concerned had recognised as being the cause of flooding of non-agricultural land, and suppose the Forestry Commissioners or the Crown Land Commissioners, as the case may be, regarded the application of the byelaws to their stream as prejudicial to them. Would it not be possible for the local authority to take desirable action with the object of the prevention or mitigation of flooding?
I can imagine many other evil consequences that could flow from the inclusion of a Clause of this kind in the Bill, but I shall be content if I can have an answer to the question that I have just asked.

The Lord Advocate: If I may, by leave of the House, speak again, I will deal straight away with that point. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in suspecting that to take the earlier example, if byelaws were made to stop


sawdust being put into a stream, the Forestry Commissioners could say "We are doing this on our own land. We have not agreed to be bound by the byelaws, and we can go on doing it." As I see it, the Clause would justify that. I will be frank about that.
We have been asked to trust the local authorities. On the other hand, we have to trust Government Departments as well. After all, we cannot ask questions of local authorities, provosts or baillies in the House—or only every three years or so—but we can ask Questions of Ministers. That is an old answer but a true one. Here one can ask Questions and chivvy Departments. There is the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), that if a case of security arises the local authority will discuss it with the Service Department. But in many cases it cannot be given all the information about the reasons why the Service Department does not wish certain operations carried out on its land: and no matter how intelligent and trustworthy the local authority may be, without the full facts at its disposal—it cannot in some cases get the full facts—it might be inclined to go on if the Clause were not in the Bill and do something which would, in fact, be prejudicial.
I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) was out of order, for it would be wrong for me to do so because it would be a slight on the Chair, but I thought that he ranged rather wide at times in dealing with schools and so on. After all, all we are dealing with here is the question of operations on certain land for the purpose of preventing or mitigating flooding on certain other land. This is, as somebody put it, antidiluvian phraseology, but we have had it for many years under Governments of both political colours. I take refuge not in the emergency entrance offered me by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East but in an emergency exit. He asked me whether, if I would not consider accepting this Amendment, I would think carefully before putting in a Clause like this in a future Bill. I certainly will do that, and, in that sort of half-way house, I hope that we can leave the matter. I appreciate the position and will certainly consider it further.

Mr. Ross: In view of the forthcoming nature of the Lord Advocate's closing words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule.—(PROVISIONS WHICH MAY BE INCORPORATED IN FLOOD PRE- VENTION SCHEMES.)

Mr. Manuel: I beg to move, in page 12, line 4, after "any", to insert "tree".
This Amendment may appear to be a matter which occasions some merriment, but I am quite serious about it. First, I should like to clear the House's mind by saying that I am not the sort of person who would like to see a lot of trees felled. If I could preserve a tree then I would be the first person to do so. I do not like the felling of trees. My family was in the forestry trade, and, whether this has left its mark on me or not, I am all for the preservation of trees.
In the First Schedule, however, we read, in paragraph 4,
The local authority may, for the purpose of carrying out the operations or of executing any temporary works, cut and lay aside or remove, or cut and use for the aforesaid purposes, any bush or scrub timber growing on land situated within the limits of lateral deviation shown on the plans referred to …
for a flood prevention scheme. The local authority is now having placed upon it the onus of dealing with emergency works when flooding takes place, with a village street and houses becoming involved, because of a river bank bursting. Such works usually mean sandbagging to get the river back into its course, and the authority has the right, in carrying out those works, to cut bush or scrub timber.
Scrub timber and a tree are quite different things. Scrub timber has no value, but one can have a tree—perhaps only a small one but still of some value—which impedes sandbagging and the temporary execution of the work, and it is wrong that the Government should protect land-owning interests to the extent that such a tree may not be cut down.
10.45 p.m.
I also want to ask the Under-Secretary of State about Clause 3 (b), which is connected with the First Schedule, and deals with the specific
… power to remove any dam or other work situated, or any tree growing, in, on, over or under the watercourse.
Local authorities would not want to cut down trees—or scrub timber or bush—unless they needed to do so. Such power as I propose would enable them to

take quick remedial action when flooding occurred. For instance, a tree might fall or be blown against another tree and, in the disturbance of the roots, the banks of the stream might be fractured, allowing the water to get through, possibly flooding into dwellings or on to roads. Is a local authority to be debarred from removing that tree so that it can repair the fractured embankment? Many trees grow near streams and their roots intertwine and form part of the bank. The example I have cited is not unlikely. Without flogging the matter, I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment so that local authorities can undertake temporary repair or remedial work as quickly as possible.

Mr. Willis: I support the modest request of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). I had hoped that we should hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) speaking on this Amendment, because I understand that he is interested in trees and their removal and their value, I have no doubt that he has a great deal of practical experience which he could offer to the House, and I hope that we shall hear from him.
My hon. Friend's request is that a local authority shall have power to take down a tree where it is necessary to do so to safeguard urban property—houses and so on. I understand that the Government have not included such power, because a tree has some value to the landowner and the power would mean that a landowner might lose the few pounds which the tree is worth. It is intolerable that people should have their houses flooded because the Government think it wrong for a local authority to get the value of a tree.

Mr. Manuel: It does not get its value; it takes it down.

Mr. Willis: I said earlier that the Government do not trust the local authorities. The Government are displaying a shocking attitude of mind. I do not think that they know anything about councils, or councillors, or the type of people with whom they will have to deal. If they did, they would not treat them in this way.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give a favourable reply to this humble Amendment. It is a minor one on


which the Government could easily yield and do themselves credit and earn the gratitude of the Opposition.
I am not certain about these definitions of bush and scrub timber. I am not certain when a tree ceases to be a tree and becomes scrub timber. I know what scrub timber is. So does anyone who is familiar with the Highlands. But when does a tree become scrub timber? When does a tree cease to be a tree?

Mr. Arthur Tiley: The hon. Gentleman ought to send for George Washington. We could all then go home.

Mr. Willis: That may seem funny, but this is a point of substance. Local authorities will have to administer the Bill. When a local authority sees something, it will have to make up its mind whether it can take it down. One person might say, "This is a tree. We cannot touch this". Somebody else might say, "We will regard it as scrub timber and pull it down and say nothing about it ". When does something cease to be what it is and become something else?
I hope that the Government will be kindly disposed towards the Amendment in view of the earnest and cogent arguments advanced by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Galbraith: The Opposition are always accusing the Government of not knowing about local authorities. All I can say is that they do not seem to know much about the characters of their Parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House. They regard with suspicion every Amendment resisted by the Government, as though the reason for doing so was the value of the trees to the owners. This, of course, is just not the case.
I argued this matter with the hon. Gentleman at some length in Committee upstairs, and it is extremely difficult for me to say anything more tonight than I said on that occasion. I will try once more, however, to convince him on this point.

Mr. Manuel: rose—

Mr. Galbraith: The Amendment follows a point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) during the discussion in Committee upstairs on the First Schedule. Its effect

is to make it possible for a local authority to cut down trees as well as bushes and scrub to enable it to carry out a flood prevention scheme or execute temporary works authorised by paragraph 2 of the First Schedule. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that aspect of it.
Local authorities carrying out a scheme must have reasonable discretion to remove bushes and other minor obstructions in the way of their legitimate operations without having to specify them individually in the scheme.
The Schedule in its present form gives them this discretion. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that to that extent we trust local authorities. But the cutting down of trees, as I indicated during our previous discussions on the subject, is a matter of a major and permanent kind. That is the point. It is not the value of the trees; it is the fact that the operation of felling them is major and permanent, and not temporary. Once a tree is cut down it is cut down.

Mr. Manuel: What if it is in the nature of temporary work?

Mr. Galbraith: The work may be temporary, but the cutting down of the tree is not. That is what the hon. Member does not seem to understand. It can take twenty or thirty years for a tree to grow. Because of that we feel that the operation should be included in the flood prevention scheme.

Mr. Manuel: Is cutting the scrub timber temporary?

Mr. Galbraith: That is quite different. Scrub timber, unlike a tree, grows up quickly again.
I say again what I have said during our previous discussion on this matter; the cutting down of trees is an operation of a major and permanent kind. But if trees require to be cut down—and there are cases where they do as part of the job of preventing flooding, it is right that the operation should be brought under control by including it in a flood prevention scheme, as indeed is provided for in Clause 3 (2, b).
Another difficulty that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends seem to have failed to appreciate is the fact that not merely one tree may be involved but a whole host of trees.

Mr. Manuel: Do not get frightened.

Mr. Galbraith: There is nothing in the Amendment to prevent a local authority cutting down any number of trees. If it were accepted, it would have the effect of giving a local authority unfettered discretion permanently to remove trees for what might be purely temporary purposes. That would be going very much further than is necessary to enable them to get on with the job, and although I understand what the the hon. Member is getting at, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Steele: That was an amazing speech. The hon. Member started off by saying that he trusted the local authorities, and accused us of being critical and saying that the Government knew nothing about local authorities. Then, having said that the Government trusted local authorities—that they were made up of men of great virtues, who would not do unreasonable things—he went on to suggest that if the Amendment were carried they would get out their hatchets and go round cutting down trees all over the place. He said that we were concerned not merely with one tree but perhaps with a whole host of them. He created a picture of members of local authorities cutting down any number of trees. What could be more ridiculous?
The Minister also said that he had already given my hon. Friend all the answers to the points he had raised, but the question of the tree to which my hon. Friend referred arose in connection with another portion of the Bill; it was not in the Schedule at all. It was the tree in the burn. The hon. Member is now referring to the tree which is not yet in the burn. He is confusing two separate issues. He said that it is not one tree. If we get a dozen trees it becomes a bush, and we know all about going into the bush. According to this, local authorities will have power to cut down a bush. Frankly, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can see the wood for the trees.

11.0 p.m.

The arguments of the hon. Gentleman are not only ridiculous but completely contradictory. He cannot, on the one hand, say that he trusts the local authorities and, on the other hand, not agree to put into the Bill a provision

which would show that he trusts them. He rejects my hon. Friend's Amendment because he fears that local authorities would do something which we all know would be completely silly. This is the last Amendment on the Notice Paper. It is only a matter of adding a small word. We should all be very happy and we should be able to part with the Bill very quickly if the hon. Gentleman were to accept my hon. Friend's "tree."

Mr. Willis: It is a four-letter word.

Mr. Steele: Will not the Under-Secretary give further consideration to the proposed Amendment and agree to the word "tree" going into the Bill?

Mr. Ross: I hesitated to rise because I thought the Under-Secretary was going to respond to the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). Like him, I have found it very difficult to follow the Under-Secretary's speech, particularly his opening words. I do not think he did justice to himself. I heard the recurring theme that trees might have to be cut down, but, if so, they would go into a scheme. But we are dealing with the First Schedule, and it starts by saying:
Provisions which may be Incorporated in Flood Prevention Schemes".
I therefore ask the Under-Secretary what he was talking about. In other words, my hon. Friend's Amendment seeks to do what the Under-Secretary says should be done.
What is his answer to that? Is it just sheer prejudice? Does he think that trees should not be cut down? He tells us that Lit might well be that a tree should be cut down. If he believes that, he ought to accept this Amendment. If he believes that the cutting down of a tree should be covered by a scheme, he had better accept the Amendment, because that is the purpose of this Schedule, and paragraph 4 is the only place where it can go in.
I ask the Under-Secretary to look at paragraph 4.:
The local authorities may, for the purpose of carrying out the operations … remove any obstructions therefrom.
A tree is an obstruction. Yet, according to the Under-Secretary, it cannot be removed. I would 'have understood the hon. Gentleman if he had said that the


Amendment was unnecessary because of these words. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is asking is that a flood prevention scheme should not be held up or spoiled because of the impossibility of cutting clown a tree. That is all.
I really think that the hon. Gentleman is still living in the kind of unreal atmosphere of the speeches that he made in Committee, when he visualised local authorities cutting down tree after tree, and emulating the Forestry Commission—with the difference that the Commission was probably replanting but that the local authority was not. I ask him to look at this matter from a cold, logical point of view, and answer this question. If the tree is an obstruction, can it be cut down?
If he insists that in a scheme the tree must be shown as cut down, where else can that be shown other than in paragraph 4 of the Schedule? I would ask him to appreciate that although there has been a certain amount of humour in this debate—and quite good humour—this is a very serious Amendment, and I sincerely hope that he will see his way, if not to accept it at least to say that he will look at it again.

Mr. Galbraith: By leave of the House, may I just say that I am very sorry that, in spite of the serious approach of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the humorous and delightful approach of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), I cannot accept this Amendment. Whatever the hon. Member for Kilmarnock may think, it would have the effect of giving the authority unfettered discretion permanently to remove trees for what might be purely temporary purposes. As the removal of a tree is a permanent thing, I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to answer this question? Since this Schedule deals with provisions within a scheme, which can either be passed or amended by the Secretary of State, what has he to lose by the acceptance of the Amendment? To my mind, everything that the hon. Gentleman says is wrong—quite wrong.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Under-Secretary was misled earlier into thinking that we

are here considering only works of a temporary nature. He based his whole speech on the proposition that my hon. Friend was asking for power to remove a tree for purely temporary works. He said that we could not put the tree back again. He has not listened to the serious speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The first word in the second line of paragraph 4 is "operations"—and that means flood prevention operations; they are all the operations that the local authority might carry out under the terms of the scheme.
These are the operations. It is for the purpose of carrying out the operations that the local authority may
… cut and lay aside or remove, or cut and use for the aforesaid purposes, any bush or scrub timber growing on land situated within the limits of lateral deviation …
Does that include a tree, or does it not? If these operations are part of the operations included in the scheme, they are not of a temporary but of a very permanent nature. I suggest that in many cases these schemes must include the removal of the trees. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that they must never include trees? If he will not have "tree" linked with "bush or scrub timber" then, of course, trees could not he included.
We are not dealing with temporary works at all; we are dealing with operations. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and I thought that the answer of the hon. Gentleman would be that the word "tree" is unnecessary, because at the end of the paragraph power is given to remove "any obstructions". That would surely include trees, but the Under-Secretary does not admit that. Any local authority would be convinced that there was no power in any circumstances as part of the operations listed in the First Schedule to cut down a tree—not a whole forest, but trees, the removal of which is necessary for carrying out the operations set out in a flood prevention scheme approved by the Secretary of State.
I should have thought that there was no harm in putting in the word "tree" before "bush". If "any obstructions" include trees, those obstructions are equally related to temporary works as to operations under a scheme. It may be that the whole paragraph will have to be looked at again. We should not


mind that. All we were concerned about was that the Under-Secretary, for some reason which was obscure. was quite determined that a local authority in seeking to prevent flooding of people's homes would not be willing to cut down someone's trees.
I wonder if the Secretary of State will undertake to have another look at this matter and consider whether "any obstruction" could conceivably include trees. Surely "any obstruction" could conceivably include trees and operations under a scheme could include removal of trees. Surely, the words "any obstruction" relate to temporary works as they relate to operations under a scheme. Any lawyer could easily convince himself and any local authority—and, I hope, at the end of the day, a court—that a tree was included in the more general phrase "any obstructions". If it is the desire of the Under-Secretary that a tree might be removed as part of the operations of a scheme but must not be removed as part of the temporary works, paragraph 4 must be looked at again.
The Under-Secretary must agree that there is some ambiguity in paragraph 4 if his intention is that a tree may be included in permanent works and operations, but not in temporary works. If so, I hope that he will at least undertake to have another look at the matter.

Mr. Galbraith: If I may speak again by leave of the House, for the third time, it may be "third time lucky". I think that the difference between us comes from whether or not a tree is to be specified in the scheme. I say that it has to be specified, because it is permanent. The hon. Member wishes it to be treated like a bush or scrub and, therefore, not specified. I am afraid that I cannot resile from my position.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) asked an interesting question about obstruction. He wanted to know if it could include a tree. I am advised that this is a matter of legal interpretation which could be finally decided only by the courts—

Mr. Willis: The courts might settle it against the Government.

Mr. Galbraith: I prefer to leave the interpretation of the word "obstruction" to the court.

Mr. Steele: The Government must put into the Bill words which mean something.

Mr. Galbraith: It would be better, I think, to leave this matter as it is. The real difference between us is whether a tree should be treated as scrub and whether it can be removed without being specified in a scheme. The view to which I incline is that, because there is something more permanent about dealing with a tree than there is about dealing with a bush, it should be specified. For that reason, I very much regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that we are trying to help the Government and stop them from getting into a difficulty. My hon. Friend has simply asked the Government to look at this again, because the phraseology is ambiguous. We ask the Government to do this in their own interests. The hon. Gentleman should at least say that he will look at it.

Amendment negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown. signified.]

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am inclined to comment that another Scottish Bill moves relentlessly on its way to the Statute Book. It is extremely difficult to find anything new to say about any part of what is in the Bill now. I was not privileged to be present at all the discussions in Committee, but I kept a watchful and interested eye on what went on there.
It would be a grave mistake on my part if I risked spoiling the flow of eloquence and repeating the many other things which have been said about the Bill. I should like to confine myself to the classic formula for Third Reading. The Bill was a good Bill when it started. It has undoubtedly been improved in the process of going through its various stages in the House. Now on its Third Reading I can only commend it to the House.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Ross: Inevitably I find myself in disagreement with the Secretary of State. He said that it was a good Bill to start


with and it is better now. I say that it was not such a good Bill to start with, but it is a little better now.

Mr. Willis: But it is still not good enough.

Mr. Ross: It is still not good enough. It certainly does not measure up to the needs of flood prevention or the expectations of those concerned with it. There may be some hon. Gentlemen opposite just waiting to make their contribution today on Third Reading.
We must appreciate that the Bill does not of itself do anything directly in relation to flood prevention. It merely enables somebody else to do it. That somebody else is the local authority. Whether the local authority will accept this responsibility depends upon the provisions of the Bill. That is one limitation. There is the further limitation that the Bill limits the operations in relation to flood prevention to non-agricultural land. We on this side think that those two limitations mar the Bill.
We must appreciate that hitherto the responsibility for flood prevention has not lain upon local authorities or any other body. Therefore, we are asking local authorities to assume a burden which will cost them some money.
If we really want flood prevention schemes carried out, the financial arrangements are very much in the nature of an inducement to local authorities. But there is no guarantee that the local authority will get anything. The position is now a little better than it was at the start of our proceedings on the Bill. It was possible then for a local authority, if it could persuade the Secretary of State, to receive up to 50 per cent. We have now managed to get the Secretary of State to make it up to 100 per cent., but the thing to notice is that there is no guarantee of anything at all.
The second point is that there are certain aspects of this assumed responsibility for which local authorities will receive no grant. They will get a grant only for particular capital works; but, once they assume the responsibility and continue to maintain, there is no grant for maintenance or for anything that happens in the course of that maintenance which makes them liable to pay compensation. They must face that new

liability on their own. Obviously, a local authority will balance the interest of what benefit it is likely to obtain from the Bill against the new financial responsibilities and the unknown liabilities for compensation. Therefore, we should not delude the people of Scotland about what the Bill means. We must make it absolutely clear that widespread flood prevention is not to be expected from this legislation.
While my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), for example, may hope that the Bill will apply to the Glengarnoch valley, we must keep in mind that the Secretary of State has told us that all that is proposed to be spent in the first year for the whole of Scotland on flood prevention is £20,000. When, under a previous Act, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to spend that amount in two years, what he actually achieved was the spending of only £6,000. Let us, therefore, not be deceived about what is likely to happen or what can happen, for we have the long-stop of the Secretary of State which obviously will prevent the widespread assumption of these powers that will attract grant.
The difficulties of flood prevention in Scotland are likely to be more serious in the coming years by virtue of the fact that what progress was being made under the 1958 Act was more or less killed off with the coming of this Bill. In other words, we were doing more under existing legislation than we are now likely to do under the Bill.
I ask the Secretary of State what Departmental arrangements he proposes to make to deal with the circumstances that now arise. This is one problem of flood prevention which in essence has only one solution—flood prevention operations. But we shall now have a second department within one Department dealing with the same problem. If the flood prevention relates to one kind of land there is one department. If it relates to another kind—urban land—there is another department. The thing is rather silly.
Of course, this is the central weakness of the Bill. It is a weakness which we have tried to bring out during the passage of the Bill. To a certain extent we have failed, I think because the Government were committed to the limitations of which I have spoken. But


I do not think that it will be the last we hear of flood prevention if we are ever to tackle it properly. As to the points that we have raised during today's discussions which are still unanswered—and I am sure that even some points which the Government resisted will have gone home—there is still time for repentance in another place, and we sincerely hope that the Government will take that chance.
In so far as the Bill will help small local authorities where a small amount of expenditure will prevent flooding, it is a useful Measure, but do not let us deceive either ourselves or the public that this is the answer to the flooding problem in Scotland, because it is not.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: What the Secretary of State for Scotland said in his opening remarks is true, that the Bill has been improved during its passage. Although it is a smaller Measure than many of us had hoped for, I hope that in my own constituency we shall get some real results from it.
It is recognised that for the first time the local authorities are being brought in under the Bill. Previous legislation has been completely ineffective. Under Clause 6, as amended, local authorities will be asked to take on very heavy responsibilities. They can be asked to clear any watercourse. Paragraph 2 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill makes that abundantly clear, for it says:
Councils are empowered to cleanse and maintain watercourses and to carry out works designed to remove the risk of flooding in their areas.
That is a wide range. Previously local authorities have had no obligation to undertake' the powers now delegated to them.
The sum of £20,000 is laid down for the first year. Those who have studied the problem recognise that this is a very small amount. The Secretary of State may have ideas about this. Has he any ideas about how this sum could be increased as schemes come in? Has he an upper limit in his mind? How much increase can we expect as schemes come in? It would be a very bad thing if the hopes of local authorities and householders in areas subjected to flooding were built up that there would be some

relief for them but schemes coming in to the Secretary of State for approval were held up because of lack of money.
I welcome the Bill, but I am sorry that it will not give a lead to local authorities, as would have been the case had our last Amendment been accepted, where there is a doubt and lawyers will have to be consulted before the local authorities know what their duties are in relation to the operations that they may undertake.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Galbraith: I am grateful for the qualified welcome that hon. Gentlemen opposite have given to the Bill. There is, of course, another place where, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointed out, anything which is not quite clear can be considered.
I think, however, that I can allay the doubts and fears of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). I do not think there is any likelihood of an upper limit being placed on the money available for flood prevention schemes.
It might interest the House to know that, in anticipation of the Bill becoming law, we have had inquiries from three councils which propose to carry out flood prevention schemes, the costs of which range from £9,000 to £36,000.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ETC. (PENSIONS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for contributory pension schemes in respect of persons employed at certain agricultural institutions and colleges financed wholly or partly out of public funds, it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for making payments under such a scheme; and
(2) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Secretary of State or the said Minister under such a scheme.

Resolution agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ETC. (PENSIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

NEW INDUSTRIES, FALMOUTH AND CAMBORNE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now Adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

11.32 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: The industrial history of my constituency goes back at least 2,000 years. Tin and copper were exported then to Europe and the Middle East. In the Civil War in the 17th Century, King Charles I relied on revenues from the export of Cornish tin to keep his armies in the field. A century later, Cornwall was the copperbelt of Europe.
In the latter part of the 18th Century and the beginning of the 19th Century, Cornwall was the cradle of Britain's great mechanical engineering industry which was to make us the workshop of the world before the century was out. Richard Trevithick, one of our greatest engineers, was born close to where the Camborne-Redruth industrial site is now being developed.
Sir Humphrey Davy, the great chemist and inventor of the miners' safety lamp, was born just beyond the edge of my constituency. The first house ever lit by gas is in the centre of Redruth, where I live. The safety fuse, which increased safety in mining and quarrying, was invented by William Bickford 125 years ago, and the factory at Tuckingmill, where it was first produced, is about to be abandoned by I.C.I.
For centuries the mining of tin and copper was our principal industry. Copper mining collapsed a century ago. For 70 years after that, tin mining was our staple industry, but in 1920 that collapsed and reduced Camborne-Redruth to a depressed area for 20 years—a bitter object lesson of an area dependent upon a single industry.
Falmouth was an important port of call for the packet ships of the first half of the 19th century, but the industry suffered a severe reverse at about the same time as copper mining collapsed. Through the foresight of Falmouth's leaders at that time, a small dockyard was established, which has developed into the great ship repairing yards of Messrs. Silley Cox today.
Penryn has been a borough for seven centuries and a small coastwise port of

some consequence. Cornish mining pumps built at Hayle more than a century ago were used in Holland until quite recently as part of that country's sea defences. All this story testifies to the virility and capacity of generations of Cornishmen and the enormous industrial and technical experience which they have acquired through the centuries.
In the 1930s, my constituency was devastated by unemployment, with an average of 24·3 per cent. over the ten years. In Falmouth it was 14·1 per cent.; in Camborne, 22·1 per cent.; in Hayle, 28·4 per cent.; in Redruth, 32·9 per cent. Until the world trade recession, following the Wall Street collapse of 1929, Cornwall's principal export for a century 'had been its young men to mining camps all over the world. Between the two world wars, work in Cornwall had been fiftful and intermittent and wages deplorably law. The increase in trade union strength in the last 20 years has at least ensured better wage standards, better hours of work and better working conditions.
I am sorry to inflict a set of statistics on the House, but I fear that it is necessary if I am to give a proper illustration of the position of my constituency in relation to the country, to Plymouth and to Cornwall as a whole. The figures are taken from Answers given to me by the Minister of Labour on 25th and 27th January, 1961. For 1958, the percentage unemployment figure for England and Wales was 1·9. It was 1·9 in 1959 and 1·4 in 1960. For the same years the corresponding figures are South-Western Region 2·2, 2·1 and 1·7; Plymouth, with Devonport and Saltash and Torpoint, 3·9, 3·9, 3v0; for Cornwall, excluding Saltash and Torpoint, 5·2, 4·8, 4·2; Falmouth, 6·9, 6·1, 6·5; the Camborne—Redruth area, 6·0, 5·8, 4·7. Those figures show conclusively how much my constituency is in need of new industries and B.O.T.A.C. aid.
There were 1,761 persons registered as unemployed in my constituency last November and 1,583 in December. Everyone knows that unemployment in the ship-repairing docks at Falmouth can fluctuate rapidly and violently. How many individuals have been unemployed at some time or other each year is impossible to say, but the figures would be very high.
Then there is the question of short-time working. This has been considerable among engineering workers in Camborne-Redruth and my latest information is that 400 men were then affected. Obviously, both unemployment and short-time working depress wages and living standards. Many workers have been selected for redundancy, either because they are married women, or because they have become entitled to retirement pensions. No one knows how many there are, because they are not registered as unemployed. All of them are really victims of trade recessions, additional to the numbers registered as unemployed.
On 26th June, 1959, I.C.I. gave notice of the closure of its factories at Tucking-mill and Ponsanooth; then employing 364 people, of whom 200 were women. The process was to be gradual and not completed until the latter half of 1961, now but a few months ahead. Three or four years ago, probably 500 people were employed at those factories.
I will not comment now on the political implications of the decision of I.C.I., nor on the references to them by the President of the Board of Trade in his speeches on 12th July and 21st November, 1960. However, I will venture to quote my Parliamentary Question to him on 27th October, 1960, and his reply: I asked:
What steps have been taken to persuade I.C.I. to divert its factory at Tuckingmill. Camborne, one of its many industries, to replace the safety fuse industry which is to be transferred to Scotland, in view of the hundreds of redundancies which will be involved under the present plans?".
The President of the Board of Trade replied:
We are in close touch with the company, which is well aware of the situation. We have also tried to interest other suitable firms in the premises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1960, Vol. 627, c. 294.]
I should like to know the results of the right hon. Gentleman's negotiations with I.C.I.
It seems to me cruel and heartless for a large industrial concern like I.C.I., with its wide ramifications, not to use its redundant factories in my constituency for some of its other manufactures. I trust that even now it will do so.
The firm has issued a book entitled "This Is Our Concern". In a foreword Sir Alexander Fleck said:

The … title is a happy one, because I.C.I. certainly is the concern of each one of us, whether we are stockholders or employees.
Employees thrown on to the scrap-heap in my constituency by I.C.I. may be forgiven some cynicism at these high-sounding phrases, however generous the redundancy grants may be. For these I am grateful to the firm, but we want busy, active factories, not derelict tombs.
The dominant industry in Falmouth is ship repairing, an industry noted for its casual employment. At times it reaches staggering proportions here. Ship repairing is subject to the vagaries of international trade and of national and international competition. Its needs were ably put to the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor, and to the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, by the Falmouth member of a delegation from the Cornish Group of Trades Councils when a conference took place here on 7th July, 1959. Doubtless the files at the Board of Trade contain records of that conference and are available to the Parliamentary Secretary for reference at any time. I hope that he will study them carefully. What was said then about Falmouth is apt still.
That Falmouth is a famous health and pleasure resort, with some of the finest yachting and sailing in Britain, is well known. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will see that the tourist and resorts industry is treated fairly in every aspect.
Falmouth Technical College needs immediate expansion. I referred to the College in an Adjournment debate on 30th November, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will impress on his colleague at the Ministry of Education its importance from the point of view of the industries of Falmouth and the neighbourhood.
I have already referred to the fact that Penryn has been, and is, a small port for coastwise shipping. The corporation's accounts show that in six of the last twelve years the harbour dues have shown a profit, and in six a loss. The net loss has been £1,443. Because of falling revenue it is difficult for the borough to carry out the necessary dredging to keep the harbour open. The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of the parlous state of coastwise shipping, and of its importance both


in peace and war. I trust, therefore, that he will keep Penryn in mind when dealing with the problem nationally.
I understand that five new firms have come, or want to come, to Penryn, though none is large compared with some of those at Falmouth and at Camborne-Redruth. Some may have applied for B.O.T.A.C. aid. If they have, I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to see that their applications are given the utmost consideration. All firms, of whatever reasonable size, are welcome here, particularly if they offer a diversification of industry. I will send the Parliamentary Secretary such information as I have in my possession about them. He can assure prospective industrialists that they will get a welcome from, and can depend on, the co-operation of the corporation and the people of Penryn.
I have already said that over the decade of the 1930s. the rate of unemployment in Camborne was 22·1 per cent. and in Redruth 32·9 per cent. Before the war ended Camborne-Redruth Urban District Council was foresighted enough to plan for new industries when peace came. I am proud of the work they did. An area near Cant Brea Station, devastated by mining operations, was bought and cleared, and on that site today stands the magnificent textile factory of Heathcoats. It has the most up-to-date machinery, exports widely, and employs hundreds of men and women. It meant a completely new type of industry for Cornwall.
Other new industries have come and are now well-established; some of them quite new to the district. The Ministry of Aviation factory at Nancekuke is another. All of them have proved the suitability of the workers, who have shown themselves to be intelligent, skilful and reliable. Despite all these efforts, however, the average rate of unemployment over the last three years is 5·5 per cent., compared with the national average of 1·7 per cent.
Camborne-Redruth Urban District Council is anxious to extend the area of its industrial estate. On 30th April last a public inquiry was held into the designation of land in the Carn Brea Station area. Up to last weekend, when I inquired, no decision had been given by the Minister of Housing and Local

Government. Can the Parliamentary Secretary do something to get his right hon. Friend to give a decision soon? The land in question is vital to the planning authority, the council, and prospective new industrialists. Considerable expense in levelling and clearing some of the land would be involved. I believe that substantial Government grants are available for such work. I hope I have shown that the council is worthy of such help, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to support whole-heartedly any application for grants that the council may put forward.
On 26th January I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a firm which would eventually employ 400 people in an entirely new industry had been refused B.O.T.A.C. aid. He asked me for details, and I sent them to him that evening. Briefly, a pottery firm, of excellent record and reputation, was prepared to establish a completely new pottery industry in Camborne-Redruth, using china clay as its basic material. The finished product would be exported to a considerable degree and be competitive in the European market. Surely this is an ideal industry for Britain, Cornwall, and my constituency in particular. I beg the President of the Board of Trade not to allow this great venture to be strangled at birth with Treasury red tape. Negotiations have gone on for a considerable time between the planning authority, the council and the firm, so that it is plain that this is not an ill-considered scheme.
A fortnight ago Tecalemit Ltd., the great engineering undertaking at Plymouth, announced its desire to build a subsidiary factory at Camborne-Redruth. The firm said:
At this stage we are discussing with the Board of Trade a factory of 25,000 square feet in which we could hope to build up an eventual mixed labour force of 250, with provision for further extension if this became possible or desirable.
Again, I ask that the birth of this new industry be assisted and not hindered.
Other and smaller ventures are welcome. We want a diversified industry. As the nearest alternative engineering towns are up to 200 miles away a new engineering firm would be a godsend. Horticulture and agriculture are vital industries in my constituency. We have


the important Ministry of Agriculture Horticulture Experimental Station at Camborne, established a few years ago. The National Farmers' Union would like an experimental farm established nearby. Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into this proposal and give it his support? I am sure that he will find the project acceptable.
An attraction to industrialists is the excellent Cornwall Technical College in Camborne-Redruth. The Cornwall Education Committee has been very generous in its provision for the College, and it is used extensively by all the important industries of the county.
The present system of mining taxation hampers the development of new mines, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will try to induce his right hon. Friend to change his previous attitude to this taxation reform.
In conclusion, I would point out that one-third of the ex-students of our Technical College leave the county for jobs—a wastage of human material which ought to be averted.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I do not wish to delay the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary for more than a moment, especially as the Truro division which I represent does not suffer from unemployment to the same degree as does that of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman). We are indeed fortunate in having a much better record.
However, it is true that there are a number of places in Cornwall which are dependent upon one industry, and that when there is a recession in any of these industries the effect is felt throughout Cornwall. Cornishmen have for many years been used to travelling long distances to their jobs, and many of my constituents work in Camborne and Falmouth and in the docks in the Cam-borne area. After all, the motto of Cornwall is "One and all." I hope that the Minister will do his best to introduce new industries to Cornwall, because it is a matter which merits special attention.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I wish to mention only two brief points. First, while I understand the unemployment problem to which the

hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Mr. Hayman) has referred, I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) that it is not confined only to the Camborne-Redruth district. It is to be found throughout the whole of Cornwall and particularly in the northern part of Cornwall. We suffer from exactly the same difficulties, including the problem of the drift from the land which causes great dissatisfaction in the area.
I should like my hon. Friend to consider giving fresh instructions to the committee which sits under his direction at the Board of Trade, when considering applications for B.O.T.A.C. aid for new industries coming into Cornwall. Will he consider giving instructions to the committee to give greater weight to the fact that Cornwall is unique, in that, while there are few people unemployed, the percentage is high, and the need for small industries is very great. I should like more emphasis to be given to that fact than is given when the committee considers other cases in the rest of the country.

11.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I am glad that this has been an all-Cornwall occasion. It is true that what happens in one area very much affects neighbouring areas. I congratulate the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Mr. Hayman) on succeeding in getting such a great deal of matter into such a short time, and I thank him for the very interesting survey that he has made of Cornish industrial history.
I say straight away that, so far as the employment situation is concerned, perhaps he rather underestimated the progress that is being made at present, when one considers that in the January count in 1961, the Camborne-Redruth area showed a wholly unemployed proportion of 4·8 per cent. and Falmouth 4·2 per cent., and compares that with January, 1960. I agree with what he says about the great variation one gets, depending on what work is available in the shipyards. In January, 1960, the figures were, for Camborne and Redruth, 6·2 per cent., and for Falmouth, 13·2 per cent. But, even excluding January, 1960, the annual rate of unemployment from February, 1960, to


January, 1961, was 5·7 per cent. in Falmouth as compared with 6·1 per cent. from January to December, 1959, leaving out the bad period, and for Camborne it was 4·1 per cent. compared with 5·8 per cent. I may say that these figures refer to wholly unemployed persons, whereas the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to the hon. Gentleman last Friday included the temporarily stopped, but there is only a small difference.
The hon. Gentleman referred to one or two difficulties. I hope that he will join in persuading I.C.I. to go back to his constituency. I had the same experience in my own constituency and I.C.I. has now gone back to it. The decline has not been so marked, and I am not in a position yet to say whether I.C.I. will close altogether at Falmouth and Camborne.

Mr. Hayman: I understood that it had been transferred to Scotland.

Mr. Macpherson: Scotland is a big place, and the factory was transferred out of my constituency to the same place. I know that some have already been paid off. I also know that if Tuckingmill closed down some buildings would be available for other industrial users—and have, indeed, already been offered to other industrial users.
One sigificant and cheering feature is the position of school leavers. Of the 81 boys and 72 girls who left school at Christmas, only five boys and six girls were still unemployed in January, 1961. Another cheering feature is jobs in prospect, which are related, of course, either to expansions of factories—successful applications for B.O.T.A.C. loans and that sort of thing—or to additional building. My information, therefore, does not cover the whole field of the extension of jobs that may arise, but there are 75 jobs in sight in Falmouth and 140 in prospect in Camborne.
There are possibilities of more jobs, some of which depend on the outcome of applications to B.O.T.A.C. for financial assistance. Nine such applications are at present under consideration, three of which relate to Penryn, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I can assure him that the applications will be given the utmost consideration. One company has

accepted a Board of Trade offer to build it a factory, and another firm has made a similar application, together with an application for a loan, and both are under consideration. The hon. Gentleman referred to Tecalemit. Once again, I can assure him that the firm's application—which has been announced, although I am not certain that it has yet been made—will receive the closest consideration.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to a prospect that did not materialise—not all of them do. Sometimes an application is rejected by B.O.T.A.C. and, as he knows, it is not the practice for B.O.T.A.C. to reveal its reasons for rejection; but that was not the case in this instance. A counter-offer was made by the Board of Trade and it was the firm that rejected that counter-offer as not being up to what it wanted. These are matters of commercial judgment, and I am afraid that we cannot 20 past that—

Mr. Hayman: If the application were renewed, would it, in the light of tonight's debate, be given favourable consideration?

Mr. Macpherson: If it were renewed in exactly the terms that B.O.T.A.C. previously offered, I am quite certain that it would receive consideration. As a general observation, I would say that applicants ought not to expect the Government to put up an undue proportion of the capital needed. They should themselves be able and willing to invest a reasonable proportion as risk capital, whether the money is their own or that of their backers.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Camborne industrial site. I am authorised by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to say that last week he made it known that he intended to amend the county development plan by allocating about 65 acres for industrial development, and designating it as subject to compulsory acquisition by the Camborne-Redruth Urban District Council. That is not as much as that authority asked for, but it goes a long way towards it. An additional source of temporary employment will be the Kerrier Rural District Council's dam and pumping station in the parishes of Stithians and Wendron.
In the few minutes left to me, I would say that unemployment in the hon. Member's constituency has decreased, and that despite some closures, which are always bound to take place, and some reductions in employment—which, again, are unavoidable—prospects are by no means unfavourable.
One has always to bear in mind that there are firms which are increasing their employment all the time, just as other firms are reducing employment. We know of some firms, one of which was established only this year, which are aiming to increase employment by quite a great deal. I expect that the hon. Member knows the firm to which I refer. As to Government assistance, as my right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) last Thursday, since 1958 three firms new to Cornwall have received financial assistance and nine firms already in Cornwall have been offered financial help in expanding their activities through B.O.T.A.C. In addition, we are building a factory for another firm.
I ask hon. Members to realise that loans which are made to firms, or grants

towards the building of factories, seldom get publicity. They are very much more likely to hear of loans not made or applications which are refused, but I assure the hon. Member and my hon. Friends that the Board of Trade will continue to do its best to steer industry to the development districts. The very fact that the constituency of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne has been recognised as a development district is itself a recognition of the high unemployment and the unfavourable comparison he made with neighbouring districts. It is, of course, to the development districts that the Board of Trade seeks to steer such industry as is available, but it is for industry itself to choose between development districts and between various places in development districts—all of which clamour among themselves for industry—and for each local authority to do its best to persuade industrialists who come its way to choose it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.